MAHAVEER ELECTRICALS Vs. DISTRICT ENGINEER TELECOMMUNICATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in Consumer Dispute No.1 of 1989 on the file of the District Forum, Srikakulam has filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum dated March 21, 1989.

(2.) The appellant herein made an application to the 4th respondent herein on October 31,1988 for shifting of external extension of Telephone No. SK-279 from Quarter No.4, S. B. I. Staff Colony, Srikakulam to Door No.16.3.1989, Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam. The 4th respondent informed the appellant through a letter dated November 24,1988 that the shifting of external extension (plan 10a) was not feasible as there were no cable pairs at both the sides. On November 26, 1988, the appellant made a representation to the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to that representation. the 3rd respondent informed the appellant through a letter dated December 14,1988 that the District Engineer, Srikakulam, the 1st respondent herein, had been requested to shift the external extension immediately. Then, the appellant approached the 1st respondent It was mentioned in the complaint that the 1st respondent refused to shift the external extension meting out discourteous treatment to the appellant. While so, through a letter dated December 27,1988 the 3rd respondent informed the appellant that the external extension of the telephone could not be shifted "due to want of certain stores and that the extension will be shifted soon after the receipt of stores. " The case of the appellant was that in the year 1987, when the appellant requested for shifting of the external extension, the Telecommunication Department took about three and half months to shift the external extension. It was alleged in the complaint that the Department shifted the phones of some other subscribers who applied for shifting much later than the appellant had applied. The grievance of the appellant was that he was harassed by the concerned employees of the Department working at Srikakulam, with some ulterior motive and by reason of the failure on their part, to shift the external extension, he was put to loss in business and mental agony to a tune of Rs.3050/-. He filed the complaint before the District Forum on January 27,1989 seeking removal of deficiency in the service by shifting the external extension of his telephone No. SK-279 and a direction to the respondents to pay damages.

(3.) The respondents raised an objection that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were not applicable to the service of providing telephone facilities. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, their version was that the telephone connection SK-279 was provided on April 4,1975 to M/s. Mahaveer Electricals represented by four partners (1) Sri Syamlal Daga, (2) Sri Bhanwarlal Daga, (3) Smt. Radhadevi Biyani and (4) Sri Daulal Daga, and that the Department did not provide any telephone connection to M/s Mahaveer Electricals represented by Sri Pradeep Kumar Biyani. According to the Department, Sri Pradeep Kumar Biyani was an unauthorised user of the telephone, and therefore, he had no locus-standi to file the complaint. In that context, it was stated that the complainant did not submit any application to the Department for transfer of telephone from the old firm to the newly constituted firm and that the shift can be given only after the transfer was effected. Their case was that the shifting of external extension was not immediately done for want of underground cable capacity in Gujarathipeta area. The allegations regarding harassment and ulterior motive were denied emphatically and it was mentioned that the telephone was kept under safe custody at the instance of the appellant and the bills were issued for normal rent during safe custody as per the instructions contained in P and T Manual Vol. XIV. Therefore, it was stated that the appellant was not entitled to claim any special or general damages.