CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, MADRAS TELEPHONES vs KARUN ENTERPRISES

THIS appeal is by the opposite parties officers of the Telephone Department against whom a decree has been passed. The case of the complainant is that he had a phone at No. 4A, Sivasankarayya Street, Srinivasa Nagar, Madras-600 063. It was installed in the year 1980. He wanted the phone to be transferred to his new address, viz., Alappakkam, opposite to Moogambikai Gas Depot, Srinivasa Nagar, Madras-600 063. The phone was accordingly changed to the new address in January, 1989. According to the complainant, after the installation of the phone in his new address, in the Telephone Directory his correct new address has not been given and also the opposite parties continued to send the bills to the old address only. Because of this, some times the complainant had to go to the Telephone Office and get a duplicate bill since the bills sent to the old address did not reach him and pay the bills apprehending disconnection of the phone if delay occurred. On account of this he suffered financial loss and mental agony. On these grounds the complaint has been filed for compensation.

THE opposite parties contended that as regards the Telephone Directory, abbreviated form of address has been given and the Telephone Directory is supplied free of cost, and therefore there is no question of deficiency in service in this aspect of the matter. As regards the complaint regarding the address given in the bills, both the old and the new address are in Srinivasa Nagar, Madras-63 only. Village name has not been changed. It is further contended that the complainant has been paying all the bills excepting only one bill in 1993 in respect of which the telephone was disconnected and later when the bill was paid, reconnection was given. THErefore, in this aspect of the matter also there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The District Forum has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties both in regard to the address given in the Directory and also the bills. Therefore it directed the opposite parties to correct the address in the Directory in conformity with the new address of the complainant and further it has ordered Rs. 12,000/- as compensation with interest thereon @ 12% p.a.

Now in the appeal it is contended that the finding of the District Forum cannot be sustained since there was no deficiency of service. Regarding the incorrect address given in the Telephone Directory, the Directory is supplied free of cost and there is no obligation on the part of the opposite parties to supply the Telephone Directory to the complainant and as such there is no deficiency in service. In a recent order of this commission, A.P. 667/95, Telecom Dist. Engineer & Anr. v. K. Muniasamy, with reference to Rule 457 - General of the Indian Telephone Rules, it has been held that the Telephone Department does not undertake any responsibility for any omission in the Directory and it will not entertain any claim or compensation on account of any omission. Therefore the complaint that there was incorrect address in the Telephone Directory cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum.

NOW coming to the next point, viz., that all the telephone bills were being sent to the old address even though the telephone had been installed in the new address in January, 1989, the documents show that the complainant has not made even one complaint regarding this for six long years before filing the complaint in the District Forum. May be the Telephone Department was thinking that there was no difficulty regarding the address since the bills were being paid regularly. It appears that the complainant has acquiesced himself in the Department sending the bills to the old address. This being the case, the complainant cannot suddenly file a complaint stating that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus considering, it appears to us that the direction given by the District Forum cannot be sustained. Therefore in the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, and dismiss the complaint. Appeal allowed.