K.L. SINGHAL vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

THE appellant, abovenamed, has filed the present appeal against order of District Forum-IV, dated 14.7.1997, in Complaint Case No. 334/96 entitled Shri K.L. Singhal v. M.T.N.L.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), before the District Forum, averring therein that the telephone No. 516849 had been installed at his old residence at 11, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi-110 055, since 1968. The said telephone number was changed to 522827 sometime in 1985. In November, 1991, the Idgah Exchange was converted into an electronic exchange and thereafter the telephone number of the appellant was again changed to 7524927. The said number after working for the appellant for four days only was further changed to 7524848 on 29.1.1992. Thereafter sometime in the last week of January, 1992, the appelalnt shifted his residence to 129, Bank Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and requested for transfer of the telephone from his old residence to his new residence, vide letter dated 9.3.1992. However, the respondent/MTNL could shift the appellant''s telephone to his new residence only in October, 1994. In the new telephone directory published by the respondent in 1994, the name and address of the appellant was omitted. It is the casse of the appellant that the respondent/M.T.N.L. intentionally and deliberately removed his name and address from the said telephone directory with a view to take revenge from the appellant for litigating against the respondent/MTNL, in another related matter, in which the appellant had accused the officials of the respondent/MTNL of having filed false affidavits and also for excess billing. Therefore, in the prayer clause of his complaint, the appellant had prayed for directions to the respondent to ensure that his name is published in the subsequent Supplementary Directory or regular Directory and also to pay him compensation/damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) alongwith costs of the proceedings. The respondent in its written version/reply filed before the District Forum stated that the name and address of the appellant could not be mentioned in the issue of 1994 Telephone Directory, on account of the fact that the same was revised upto 1.4.1994 only, whereas the telephone of the appellant was shifted to his new residence only in October, 1994, and as such the said omission was neither intentional nor deliberate, as alleged by the appellant. It was further stated by the respondent that according to Rule 457 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, no claim can be entertained on account of any omission of any entry or error in the Telephone Directory and had also relied upon the decision of the National Commission in the case of Telephone District Manager, Hissar v. Shri Dev Raj & Ors., I (1994) CPJ 23 (NC)=1986-1995 CONSUMER 1013 (NS).

However, the District Forum, relying upon the said decision of the National Commission, dismissed the complaint of the appellant vide order dated 14.7.1997. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before us.

WE have gone through the documents/material placed on record as well as heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties. The main contention of the appellant, in the present appeal, is that his name and address had been removed from the new Telephone Directory published in 1994 and that the respondent had deliberately and with mala fide intention done so on account of revenge. The appellant has not placed anything on record to show the mala fides of the respondent in this regard. Further, it does not appeal to reason that the officials of the respondent which is a statutory body can on account of personal grudge omit the entry of the appellant''s name and address from the Telephone Directry. Furhermore, the reasons advanced by the respondent for the said omission appear to be genuine, in view of the fact that the Telephone Directory was corrected upto 1.4.1994 whereas the telephone of the appellant was shifted to his new residence only in October, 1994. Further, Rule 457 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, relied upon by the respondent lays down that : "457. General-Any telephone directory provided by the Department shall remain its exclusive property and shall be delivered to it on demand. The department reserves the right to amend or delete any entries in the telephone directory at any time and undertakes no responsibility for any omission; and it shall not entertain any claim or compensation on account of any entry in or omission from the telephone directory or of any error therein."

The said provision came up for consideration before the National Commission in the case entitled Telecom District Manager, Hissar v. Shri Dev Raj & Ors. (supra), wherein it was held : "It is further to be noted that the telephone directory is not the property of the subscriber. Rule 457 lays down that any telephone directory provided by the Department shall remain its exclusive property and shall be delivered on demand. Under that rule, the Department has also reserved its right to amend, delete any entry in the telephone directory at any time and undertakes no responsibility for any omission and further that it shall not entertain any claim or compensation on account of any entry in or omission from the telephone directory or error therein. Therefore, the complainant''s grievance that he is inconvenienced in locating the new numbers is unfounded because even if a new telephone directory is published and there is any omission of some entries the complainant cannot hold the department liable for claim for compensation for the omissions. He will have to take resort to the ''Directory Enquiry'' No. 197 which is meant for seeking and obtaining information."

(Emphasis supplied) In view of the observations made above by the National Commission, and express provisions of Rule 457 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, we cannot hold the respondent liable to pay compensation to the appellant. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well-considered order of the District Forum. As such the present appeal, being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.

THE present appeal is disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.