PUSHPA DEVI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal is by the complainant Pushpa Devi whose complaint was dismissed by District Forum, Patiala vide order dated December 27,1996. The complaint was filed against General Manager, Telephones, Patiala. The complainant was relegated to his remedy in the Civil Court. Although, the appeal narrates the facts in detail and is supported by documents, Annexures Al to A15, which were also produced before the District Forum, it is not considered necessary to refer to the same in detail as decisions of the National Commission already made would cover the case. Only facts are summarised.

(2.) The complainant in response to an advertisement, applied for allotment of a Pay Phone (STD Public Call Office) in 1992. In September, 1992 vide Annexure A3, the authorities sanctioned the grant of telephone connection on some conditions. A sum of Rs.9,600/- was deposited by the complainant in response to Demand Notice in March, 1994. At that time, the complainant was eligible for the connection as having qualified upto 7th class. Subsequently, the policy was changed and only such connections were to be issued to matriculates. Vide letter dated November 30,1994, Annexure A11, the request for the grant of connection was rejected. Thus, she approached the District Forum for the grant of relief, a direction to the Telephone Authorities to release the connection. The National Commission in "union of India V/s. N. Vasudevan", 1993 1 CPJ 84 held that under the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Forum have not authority to give a direction for giving the telephone connection as has been done by the State Commission. The relief granted by the State Commission was stated to be beyond its jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act. The complainant in that case had applied for telephone connection giving his address. The Department made investigation that the complainant was not residing at that address and declined to grant the connection at the new address. In the same Volume at page 627 is another decision of the National Commission in "union of India and Another V/s. Dr. Sudha Pareek", a direction was given for releasing the telephone connection alongwith payment of compensation for the delay. The complainant applied for telephone connection and claimed priority being a medical doctor. Instructions were issued for installation of the telephone but the same could not be complied with as the complainant was not found residing at the address given. The Department closed the case that the Forum was approached. The complainant in that case did not pursue the matter from 1984 to 1990. Apart from the fact that the version of the complainant was not accepted. In para 9 of the judgment, it was observed as under : "more importantly, the State Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing the allotment of a telephone to the respondent as this is not a relief, it can grant under Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(3.) There is another aspect of the matter. The complainant, who wants to run STD, PCO will only be a licencee and cannot be held to be a hirer of services of the Telephone Department, a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. It has been so held by the National Commission in "union of India and Ors. V/s. Ramesh Kumar",1995 3 CPJ 67. The earlier decision of the National Commission on the same subject in "general Manager, Madras Telephones and Ors. V/s. R. Kannan", 1994 1 CPJ 14 was relied upon. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, the Gujarat State Commission in "union of India v, Mandvi Merchants Association", III (1995) CPJ 181 allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and Others in the matter of STD, PCO connection. Thus, in view of the cases referred to above, the complainant cannot be granted any relief by the FORA established under the Consumer Protection Act in respect of grant or non grant of telephone connection.