CALCUTTA TELEPHONE AND ANOTHER Vs. TELEPHONE SERVICE SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Grievance of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint was not maintainable and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00has been awarded without there being any evidence. As regards the first point, it is claimed that Ms. Moutushi Acharya on whose behalf the complaint was filed, was not a subscriber and further she herself has not filed the complaint. The complaint was filed by a voluntary consumer association. Since, neither Ms. Acharya nor the telephone service society were beneficiaries with the approval of the service provider, the society could not have filed the revision petition.

(2.) In this regard, it may be mentioned that the 'complainant' means a consumer; or any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force. The purpose of including any such voluntary consumer association is to protect the consumers who generally remain unrepresented and who cannot pursue the matter themselves. If one consider objects of inclusion of such provision, it cannot be accepted that such voluntary consumers association cannot file such complaint under Sec. 2(b)(i)(ii) of the Act, if the beneficiary uses the services with the approval of the consumer, for the user is not with approval of the service provider.

(3.) We feel that it has to be with the approval of the subscriber in case of telephone connection and approval of the department is not required for user of the telephone facilities by die guests and relatives. It is evident that she happened to be the niece of the subscriber. As such we would hold that the complaint was maintainable.