MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs VINOD V. KARKARE

THE present appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Bombay dated 6.7.1990 directing the appellant to put the telephone of respondent in working condition within 15 days with order to pay the compensation of Rs. 6,600/- to the complainant. THE appellant has been further directed to give rebate to the complainant for the period between 1.3.89 to 28.2.90.

THE necessary facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having telephone No. 5513293. THE complainant has been using the aforesaid telephone from 23.12.88. THE complainant alleged that the telephone was dead for six month is off and on. He had written several letters to the various offices of the appellant but they were not replied. Even for die claim of rebate, an application was required to be made. According to the complainant die appellant completely ignored the grievance made out by the complainant and thus mere was ''deficiency'' in the service of the appellant THE appellant also claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,000/-. A notice u/S. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act was issued on 23.3.1990 which was received by the appellant on 26.3.1990. Inspite of the clear cut direction from the District Forum, to file reply in answer to the allegations contained in the complaint within 30 days time, the appellant chose to remain silent for a considerable period of three months. Appellant filed reply on 26.6.1990. Nothing was placed on record by the appellant except the reply. In the reply the appellant contended that the telephone No. 5513293 in question was kept under special rack as the premises was closed on 2.12.89 at 18.30 hrs. According to the appellant, the line was continuously working with no more interruption from 1.3.1989 to 1.3.1990. Further it was submitted that the reading has been recorded during the period 20.2.89 till 25.5.90 which corroborates the aforesaid facts. On 29.6.1990, the appellant was directed to produce all dockets of the complainant showing the meter reading. It is seen from the record that the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. did not place those dockets and other documents before the District Forum to show reading of the meter to establish the telephone in working condition. In absence of the said dockets and the records, the learned District Forum held that the complainant has proved his allegations and therefore, passed the impugned order.

Shri Rajguru appeared for appellant. Dr. Karkare, respondent heard in person.

SHRI Rajguru made various submissions before this Commission. No such submission was made either in writing or orally before the District Forum. The Divisional Engineer, M.T.N.L., Bombay only made a statement in writing that the line was continuously working and there was no interruption from 1,3.89 to 1.3.90. We, therefore, find that had there been the submissions before the District Forum, which are being made before us, the District Forum could decide those points in its order. The first submission made by SHRI Rajguru is that the telephone No. 523382 was granted to one Smt. Malati Joshi. The same telephone stands in her name in the directory and records of the Department Thereafter the said telephone number was changed and on the material date this No. is 5513293. However, that is not so much relevant. According to SHRI Rajguru, Dr. Karkare is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act in view of the fact that the records does not show him as a subscriber of the said telephone. It is further submitted that since Dr. Karkare got the said telephone by way of transfer as a tenant under Rule 429, his case is covered under Rule 429 of the Indian Telephone Rules. On perusal of the provision of the said Rule, it shows that the subscriber shall not assign, sublet or otherwise transfer the telephone. The other part of the Rule relates to the procedure for the authority for transfer of a telephone under certain circumstances. According to Dr. Karkare, he is not a tenant of Smt. Malati Joshi but in her close relation. According to him, since Smt. Malati Joshi has gone abroad, he is staying in the premises of Smt. Malati Joshi as a close relation and as such, using the telephone as a relation of Smt. Malati Joshi. It has been further informed that Smt. Malati Joshi occasionally comes to India and stays in the said house and uses that telephone. In view of the circumstances Dr. Karkare submits that he is neither a tenant nor an assignee or otherwise transferee of the telephone. Under the Rules, there is no definition of ''Transfer'' except occurring in Rule 429 of the Indian Telephone Rules. Taking into consideration, the factual position, we are not prepared to believe that Dr. Karkare is a tenant or sub-tenant or transferee within the meaning of Rule 429. The next submission made by Shri Rajguru is u/S. 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the Government is not responsible for the loss or damage, and therefore, grant of compensation to Dr. Karkare is contrary to the aforesaid provision. This submission is devoid of any substance since the Consumer Protection Act provides such a relief to a user of a telephone if loss is caused to him due to negligent act of the Telephone Authority. The perusal of the judgment shows that although the claim has been made by the opposite party in their written submission dated 26.6.90 about the reading of the meter; no evidence to support the said submission has been placed on record by the appellant. It is mentioned in the para 3 of the judgment that the junior telephone officer was called upon to produce all dockets of the complaints during the last one year made by the complainant. The District Forum, the learned Members of the District Forum had directed the junior Telephone Officer to produce those dockets on 3.7.90. But according to the order it is revealed that on that date, neither the Junior Telephone Officer appeared before the District Forum nor produced those dockets on behalf of the M.T.N. Ltd. before District Forum. Considering the findings reached by the District Forum, on the basis of the facts and the affidavits made by the complainant, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. We find that the order of the District Forum is correct and requires to be maintained. In the result, we dismiss this appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed.