CALCUTTA TELEPHONE vs SAILENDRA NATH CHAKRAVARTY

IN this appeal filed by the Calcutta Telephones an order awarding compensation to a subscriber whose prayer for restoration of a telephone after the expiry of the period of safe custody was delayed by about 11 months. The respondent one Sailendra Nath Chakravarty requested the Telephone Deptt. to keep his telephone in safe custody as he was posted outside Calcutta on official assignment. He wanted his telephone to be in safe custody from 1.10.1993 to 30.9.1994. There was no response from the Telephone Authority and on personal contact he was advised on 8.2.1994 to make a fresh application in the prescribed form. This was done but no corresponding action was taken for disconnection of the telephone. At last work order was issued on 5.5.1994 for disconnecting the telephone. After the expiry of the safe custody period the subscriber prayed for reconnection and at last necessary work order was issued on 28.6.1995 for reconnection of the telephone. This was not done and the subscriber filed a complaint demanding restoration of the telephone and the adjustment of the rental charges against the bills already paid.

ON the last date of hearing the complaint case before the District Forum the complainant submitted that the Telephone Authorities had restored the telephone connection on 19.12.1995 and had sanctioned a refund of Rs. 3.623/-. The District Forum held that the complainant''s prayer for restoration of telephone and adjustment of rental charges were redressed, but nevertheless it awarded a compensation of Rs. 3.000/at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for the unnecessary delay in restoring the telephone. It is this awarding of compensation which has been attacked in the appeal.

Evidenty there was delay for restoration of the telephone connection after the work order was passed. The appellant Telephone Authority has not cared to explain it. There is no explanation whatsoever for this delay. In paragraph 4.7 of Circular No. 2-10/87-PHA dated 10.9.1987 it has been clearly stated that restoration of the telephone after the safe custody would be carried out on highest priority. Is the Telephone Authority aware of this provision ? If so, why was the delay ?

IN our country administration of the Tele communication Department has contributed to the creation of a peculiar pattern. The telephone system is run on a monopoly basis. Under the Consumer Protection Act the subscriber is a consumer and the telephone service is a ''service'' within the definition of ''service'' under the Act. It must, therefore, run on a commercial line against payment of fees and not in exercise of a sovereign power. The Telephone Department hovering under an utter misconception pampers itself as an agent of the sovereign even in the matter of dispensing an essential commercial service. Why is a subscriber''s humble complaint not given any importance at all ? Why is a dis-ordered telephone left unattended days and months together knowing fully well that their service has been hired for consideration ? What is more humiliating, the helpless subscribers are often put to ignominious insult if they insist that the service hired by them should be duly performed. The Telephone Authorities are very eloquent about the provisions of Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 which authorise them to disconnect a telephone line in default of payment of charges, but they are reticent about the provisions of Rule 112 of the self-same Rules which impose an indentical reciprocal obligation on them to maintain the equipment and apparatus "in good working order". Rule 443 imposes a punishment on the subscriber, but Rule 412 imposes no punishment. In sooth, it is an embarrassing enigma why the Telephone Authorities have been swayed by the idea that it is their privilege to cow down a helpless consumer without the least responsibility to render a legitimate service against the consideration paid.

WE note with chagrin that this callousness is systematically encouraged by the officers of the Department by filing indiscriminate appeals without caring to explain their deficiency. WE are constrained to remark that it is a horrible experience of every citizen that if a telephone goes out of order the persons in-charge of the maintenance show very little anxiety to set it in order. Have the provisions of Rule 412 been banished from the statute book ? We wish that our observations above be perused by every person in-charge of maintenance of telephone apparatus and appliances and let a sense of duty of a Government servant of a free country dawn on them. In the appeal before us the allegation of deficiency of service is not denied, but it is argued that the amount of compensation awarded is not based on any evidence. But then what according to the appellant would have been the proper compensation ? You purposely defy the Government Circular requiring a restoration of telephone on a priority basis. You deprive a subscriber of the privileges of a hired telephone for an indefinite period for no fault of his own and then argue that there is no proof of any loss. How to prove the loss in such a case ? If a doctor or a lawyer is deprived of his telephone service for the negligence of the Telephone Department, how will the loss be quantified ? How will you measure the mental pain and harassment ? If a person has been deprived of an essential utility service such as a motor car or a telephone the mental agony is inherent in it and requires no special proof. In this case the adjustment of rental rebate has already been admitted and we endorse the District Forum''s order on this point. As regards the amount of compensation, on a consideration of the entire circumstances we reduce the amount by 500 (five hundred) rupees. Subject to the above modification the order of the District Forum is confirmed. The opposite party shall accordingly pay a total amount of Rs. 6,123/(Rupees six thousand one hundred and twentythree) (Rs. 3.623/- plus Rs. 2,500/-) to the complainant within one month from the date of communication of this order. In default of payment as aforesaid, the entire decretal dues shall bear an interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum. Appeal disposed of.