COMMERCIAL OFFICER N.W. vs P.L. Meyyappan

THE complainant laid the complaint before the Lower Forum alleging as follows : THE complainant is a Senior Advocate having 37 years of practice. He was originally residing at No. 15, Pidariyar Koil Street, Madras, wherein he had a phone with indicator bearing No. 519432. THEn he shifted his residence from that place to No. 5-B, 21st Avenue, Banu Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai - 600053. He applied for the shifting of his phone on 3.7.1995. A bill was issued to the complainant on 11.4.1996 for a sum of Rs. 1,029/- towards shifting charges. THE complainant paid the said sum on 24.4.1996. THE Commercial Officer (NW) gave the complainant an indicator No. 681236 and the phone was shifted. THE said phone connection has not been working even from the date of its installation. THE complainant made several representations personally as well as in writing. THE complainant was informed that due to change of the system to electronic one, there was some defect and it would be rectified. But nothing was done and again the complainant brought it to the notice of the Exchange. Further, no bill was issued to the complainant after the shifting of the phone and after the shifting charges of the bill was paid. THE opposite party also informed on 16.6.1996 that there is no reading and that further bill would be sent to the complainant soon. THE complainant thereafter approached the Inquiry Department at Avadi Exchange and requested to verify the relevant file and do the needful. It was then informed that the said indicator No. 681236 is in safe custody in the name of the one Sathyanarayanan residing at Vaishnavi Nagar from 1.1.1996 and that it has been wrongfully and mistakenly shifted and assigned to the complainant and that they cannot do anything in the matter and that if the complainant wanted the correct phone, he should approach the Telephone Officer in-charge. Thus it was only on 1.4.1998 the complainant came to know that the phone that was left for safe custody and which was in the name of one Sathyanarayanan has been wrongly assigned and allotted to the complainant. THE complainant being a senior lawyer having a large number clients, was put to inconenience on account of the absence of phone facility. He has suffered considerable loss. In view of the non-service of the phone, he incurred loss not less than Rs. 10,000/- per month and for the last 23 months from June 1996 to April 1998 the loss would come to Rs. 2,30,000/-. On account of the conduct of the opposite party, the complainant has been put to the mental hardship. He was not able to contact his friends, relatives or Doctors. THErefore, the complainant has filed the complaint for allotment of a correct phone and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- along with cost of Rs. 5,000/- and for payment of Rs. 360/- as interest per month from 24.4.1996.

THE opposite parties filed a version reading as follows : THE telephone with indicator No. 519432 subscribed by the complainant was shifted to his new residence as per his request on 26.2.1996 with a new telephone No. 681236. His telephone was working satisfactorily. THE complainant was making use of the said telephone. Telephone No. 681236 was previously installed in the house of one Sathyanarayanan. As per his request for long time safe custody for more than six months period was disconnected and as per the Departmental Rules, it was dereserved and made spare. Mr. Sathyanarayana was allotted a dummy number viz., 01111. As the telephone number was 681236 spare and as there was scarcity of telephone numbers in "68" series for allotment to new subscribers in Avadi Exchange, the telephone number was allotted to Mr. P.L. Meyyappan, the complainant. If any one had dialed the said No. 681236 without knowing that the said Mr. Sathyanarayana had taken his telephone to safe custody, the opposite parties are not aware of the same. THE complainant had not given any complaint regarding this problem. While changing over to the Electronic Exchange from the old cross bar exchange, the complainant''s number 681236 was tested and there was no reply. As the conversion work was carried out in bulk, this number was left out for want of verification. This number was omitted due to the absence of response from the telephone number at the time of testing and hence the rent bill was not issued. Had the complainant represented to the Divisional Engineer regarding the conversion to the Electronic Exchange of his telephone number, the omission would have been traced and the problem would have solved earlier. THE complainant, instead of representing to the opposite parties, had approached the Consumer Forum. THE opposite parties subsequently tested the telephone and made verification and converted this number to 6381236 in electronic exchange on 24.5.1998. THE telephone No. 681236 was omitted because there was no response. THEre is no wilful or wanton delay in conversion. Consequently, the bills have not been issued. THE complainant''s telephone was not disconnected. Hence the opposite party prays that the complaint may be dismissed. The Lower Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the Telephone Department has preferred this appeal.

The complainant had shifted his residence from G.T. to Banu Nagar, Ambattur and had applied for shifting of his telephone No. 519432. It is admitted that the telephone was shifted to the new address and indicator number given therefor is 681236. According to the complainant, his phone was not at all functioning. In fact, several letters and reminders sent by the complainant and his legal notices would all show that the said phone has not been functioning at all from the date of installation. Though the Telephone Department had alleged that it was functioning satisfactorily and normally till the change of the Exchange from Cross Bar to Electronic System, they have not produced any document such as receipts, or meter reading cards to show that in fact it was working. The negligence and carelessness on the part of the Telephone Department is rampant and writ very large upon them. To assign and allot a telephone number which has been entrusted to them for safe custody by a third party is really astonishing. What is their excuse for the same? They cannot simply brush it aside by stating that it was done by oversight. It is a Public Department intended for the service of the public. They cannot simply say that without even verifying they allotted the number. The fact that the telephone was in their custody is admitted. It is not stated by them in the version when it was entrusted to them for safe custody. But the fact remains that only when it was in their safe custody it has been assigned to the complainant and this in itself is a wanton and carelss act. After the exchange was changed from Cross Bar to Electronic System, they have omitted to convert the complainant''s telephone as such. This is admitted in categorical terms by them. It is stated that it has been done due to oversight. It is also stated that it has been done due to the non-response. If really there was no response, what prevented them from issuing a notice or sending a person from the Department to verify? Why there was no response? Whether the telephone has been functioning or not. They have not chosen to do so. There is absolutely no explanation given for the same. On the other hand they would put the blame at the doors of the complainant stating that had the complainant brought this to the notice of the Divisional Engineer this omission could have been traced and the problem would have been solved. When a telephone is entrusted for safe custody it is allotted to the complainant. After the conversion of the exchange in spite of repeated phone calls there was no response, what did the Department do all these days? Thus, all the averments made in the written version of the opposite parties are absolutely devoid of merits. They are puerile and to put it finally, has no hue of truth in them. It is really sad that a public Department should adopt such a flippant, careless and casual approach and should choose to make such allegations before a statutory Forum without verifying the records and the legal position. It is fortunate for them that the complainant has not chosen to prefer a cross appeal claiming higher compensation. It is, therefore, clear that there is absolute dearth of service, indifferent posture and an ignominous response from their part towards a subscriber. It is an eminent nay even a monumental example of deficiency in service. Hence we do not see any merit in this appeal.

CONSEQUENTLY this appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The order of the Lower Forum is hereby confirmed. Time 2 months. Appeal dismissed.