BALBIR KHANUJA vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

SINCE both these appeals are directed against the same order dated 18. 5. 2007 in complaint No. 37/07 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called the ''district Forum'' for short), they are being disposed of by this common order. By the said order, the OPs -Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter called the ''bsnl'' for short) and Divisional Engineer, Rajnandgaon of BSNL were directed to provide Telephone Directory to the complainant within a period of one month, from the date of the order and also to pay Rs. 500 as cost of the complaint.

UNDISPUTED relevant facts stated in brief are, that the complainant is a consumer and subscriber of OPs and had obtained a telephone connection No. 224252 from the OPs / BSNL at Rajnandgaon. The complainant though demanded a Telephone Directory from the OPs, the same was not provided to him. The main defence of the OPs /bsnl was that since the Telephone Directory has not been published so far, the same could not be provided to the complainant. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service by the OPs.

As noticed above, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed that the OPs/bsnl shall provide to the complainant Telephone Directory within one month and shall also pay cost of Rs. 500 to the complainant.

THE complainant (appellant in Appeal No. 310/07) has prayed that compensation ought to be awarded due to deficiency in service by the OPs. The OPs/bsnl, (appellants in Appeal No. 318/07) have however challenged the impugned order and have stated in the memo of appeal that directory inquiry service is provided free of cost to the consumers and therefore there was no deficiency in service. It was also stated in the memo of appeal by the OPs/bsnl that directory could not be published so far, because of the dispute between the contractor and the BSNL. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. The main question that arises for consideration is: as to whether the OPs/bsnl are under an obligation to provide Telephone Directory?

IN the above context, reference be made to Rules 452 and 458 of the Telephone Directory Publication Rules (''telephone Rules'' for short) which provide that the directory shall be published by the department. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, Rules 452 and 458 are being quoted below: "rule 452. Supply of telephone directories-A copy of the telephone directory shall be supplied free of charge for each telephone extension or party line, rented by the subscriber from an exchange system or private branch exchange or a private exchange. A copy shall also be supplied free of charge for each extension (including extension) from an extension working from a public call office. Additional copies supplied shall be charged for at such rate as may be fixed by the Telegraph Authority from time-to-time. Rule 458. Publishing of telephone directory-Except with the permission of the Telegraph Authority no person shall publish any list of telephone subscribers. "

It would, therefore, appear that BSNL were under an obligation to get the Telephone Directory published and to supply the same to the subscribers. It is clear also that in the absence of Telephone Directory, the service of telephone connection provided by the BSNL cannot be fully and effectively used by the consumers. The mere fact that free telephone inquiry service has been made available by the OPs/bsnl would not constitute valid excuse for not publishing and providing Telephone Directory, as has been laid down under the Telephone Rules. It may be noticed in the above context that the Division Bench of M. P. High Court in Dr. Rajiv Agrawal v. Union of India,1993 MP Weekly Notes -page No. 244 has after reference to Rules 452 and 458 of Telephone Rules observed that not only a subscriber but also a potential user of telephone has a right to know the changed telephone numbers. It was further observed that non-publication of up-to-date directory as required under the rules makes it wholly uneconomical and is not satisfactory. Default in publication of the directory by the publisher, was held to be unsatisfactory explanation of the Telephone Department. It was also observed therein that as the subscriber pays rent and call charges, he has a right to know the changed telephone numbers and therefore up-to-date directory ought to have been published and supplied.

IN the instant case also the plea of the OPs/bsnl is that the directory could not be published in the State of Chhattisgarh so far. It has been stated in Memo of Appeal No. 318/07 that the contractor to whom the contract of publication has been given, has raised a dispute due to which the publication could not take place. The said explanation is not satisfactory. The dispute is a matter between the contractor and BSNL and the subscriber cannot be made to suffer, on account of the said dispute. Accordingly, we find that non- publication and supply of directory to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service

CONSIDERING the inconvenience and deficiency in service by the OPs, we direct that the OPs/bsnl shall pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 3,000 (Rupees three thousand ). They shall endeavour to get the directory published as early as possible and not later than two months from the date of this order. On publication, the same be supplied to the complainant. It is hoped that in future also, up-to-date directory will be got published from time-to-time, as required under the rules. The OPs /bsnl shall also pay cost of this litigation to the complainant, which is quantified at Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand ). Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of and the impugned order stands modified in the above terms. Appeals disposed of.