MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs JAGDISH RAM KATARIA

THE present appeal has been filed assailing the order of the District Forum-V dated 18.9.1998, passed in Complaint Case No. 66/98 (1511/96) entitled Shri Jagdish Ram Kataria v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

THE relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), before the District Forum, stating therein that the Telephone No. 7271996 had been installed at his residential premises on 17.7.1996. It was alleged that no bills had been received in respect of the telephone and no Telephone Directory had been supplied to him at the time of the installation of the said telephone. THE respondent had, therefore, filed the complaint before the District Forum for the redressal of his grievances. The defence of the appellant/MTNL in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum was, that the Directory was out of stock and as such could not be supplied to the respondent and that as soon as new Directories were printed the same would be supplied to the respondent immediately. It was further stated by the appellant/MTNL that in the absence of a Telephone Directory, the subscriber is entitled to use the services of 197 (Directory enquiry) free of charge and as such no inconvenience was being caused to the respondent in the absence of a Telephone Directory.

The District Forum decided the complaint in favour of the respondent, holding the appellant/MTNL guilty of deficiency in service and directed the appellant to either supply the Directory or to pay Rs. 200/- as cost of the same for purchase from the market and also awarded Rs. 500/- as damages and another sum of Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation, to the respondent.

AGGRIEVED by the abovesaid order, the appellant/MTNL had filed the present appeal. The respondent was duly served and put in his appearance in person. 6.We have carefully gone through the documents/material on record, as well as, have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties. 7. The short controversy involved in the present appeal is, whether the non-supply of a Directory to the respondent at the time of installation of the telephone connection would tantamount to ''deficiency in service'' on the part of the appellant. In this regard Rule 452 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, is significant, which reads as under: "A copy of the Telephone Directory shall be supplied free of charge for each telephone, extension or party line, rented by the subscriber from an exchange system or private branch exchange or a private exchange. A copy shall also be supplied free of charge for each extension (including extension) from an extension working from a public call office. Additional copies supplied shall be charged for at such rate as may be fixed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time."

Thus, it would be seen that the said facility of a Telephone Directory is supplied free of charge and as such the same would not be covered within the definition of the term ''service'' as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The said provision reads as under : 2(1)(o). "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service; 9. On a plain reading of the above provision, it is apparent that the definition of service, envisages hiring of service for consideration and anything supplied free of charge would not amount to rendering of ''service'' and a person availing of such a service without consideration would not be a ''consumer'' under the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the appellant cannot be held to be deficient in service for non-supply of Telephone Directory to the respondent. In a recent decision this Commission in case entitled MTNL v. F.C. Chandol, Appeal No. A-712/96 decided on 25.7.2000, has held that non-supply of Telephone Directory cannot be treated as deficiency in service on the part of the MTNL. However, as per the directions contained in Rule 452 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, it is mandatory on the part of the appellant/MTNL to supply a Telephone Directory to a subscriber of a telephone and, therefore, in terms of the said rules, the appellant must supply a Telephone Directory to a subscriber at the time of installation of a telephone connection. It was however stated by the respondent during the course of arguments that he has now been supplied a copy of the Telephone Directory and as such the grievance of the respondent in the present appeal stands redressed. In view of the observations made above, it is held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and, therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant/MTNL is allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. There is however no order as to costs. The present appeal is disposed of in above terms. Appeal allowed.