Calcutta Telephones vs S.N.METWANI

THIS is an appeal against an order of the Calcutta District Forum in Case No. CDF/1570/95 allowing a petition of the respondent complainant for compensation against the allegation of deficiency in service. The case of the complainant was that the Telephone was out of order from 16.11.1992 to 9.6.1993. After he lodged a number of complaints with the 44-Exchange, the telephone was at last restored on 10.6.1993. The complainant had accordingly prayed for a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and a rental rebate for the period during which the telephone was out of order. The opposite party contested the case and its contention was that the telephone was actually out of order for 64 days from 16.11.1992 to 19.1.1993 and again from 19.3.1993 to 27.3.1993 for 8 days due to external underground cable fault. The District Forum after hearing both the parties ordered that the dispute regarding rental rebate be referred to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It also found that the opposite party is guilty for deficiency in service and accordingly award a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.

BEFORE the Commission the appellant has submitted that the Telephone Authority was not liable not for the non-repairing the defect of the telephone which according to them was due to underground cable fault. Their further arguments is that the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum was not supported by any evidence. Admittedly, the telephone went out of order and it was not repaired for quite a number of days, although there is a dispute between the parties as the actual number of days during which the telephone was out of order. The plea of the Telephone Authorities is that the said authority had no negligence in the matter. The learned District Forum has not believed the defence of the Telephone Authorities. According to it there was no possibility of accumulating of rain water during the period as it was the winter season. There was also no proof that there was a heavy downpour and the area was devastated by water or that there was constant water logging. The Forum has also remark that there was no proof that the cable was disturbed by digging of earth by Calcutta Tram Company or the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation or the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The Calcutta District Forum after discussing the evidence has come to conclusion that the Telephone Authority has not been able to prove their case of underground cable fault. We agree to the reasoning given by the lower Court and see no reason to differ from it. The Telephone Department should bear in mind that it has to deal with a public utility service against fees paid by the consumer and it has an accountability to the consumers. The finding of the Forum on this point is accordingly upheld.

As regards the quantum of compensation it is true that no delayed evidence has been led over these points but we shall have to consider the case from the usual stand point that a Telephone is a necessity of many and it works on the basis of hire service paid by the consumers at the instance of the subscriber. The Telephone Authorities accept the money for rendering the service as a duty to keep the Telephone appliances in good order. This has been statutorily provided in Rule 412 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1885. We regret to note that this obligation on the part of the Telephone Authorities is conveniently forgotten while belonging with the sbuscriber''s complaint by the said authorities. We have discussed at length on these points in a recent judgment given in SC. Case No. 300 / A/96, Calcutta Telephone v. Sailendra Nath Chakraborty. We have emphasised on the necessity of looking after the grievances of the subscribers as a matter of prudence and liability. In this case the Forum has awarded a token compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. We think that justice should be met if the amount should be reduced to Rs. 3,000/- which appears to us reasonable considering the breach of right and mental agony suffered by the subscribers. As regards the other part of the Forum''s order we endorse the same. Hence, this appeal is allowed in part with the modification that the amount of compensation from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand). The other portions of the judgment are confirmed. There will be no order for cost. Appeal partly allowed. ________________