R.Jayaraman vs MADRAS TELEPHONES

THE unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. His case is that he is a subscriber to telephone number 6263672 which is in the white pages in the telephone directory for the year 1993. THE same number has been published in the yellow pages against the name of the 3rd opposite partycompany M/s. Water Tek. Because of this, people who wanted to telephone the 3rd opposite party were telephoning to the complainant. On account of frequent such calls the complainant and his family members have suffered inconvenience and nuisance. THE 1st opposite party is the Telephone Department. THE 2nd opposite party is the Printer & Publisher of the Telephone Directory.

THIS was contested by the 1st opposite party. The 2nd & 3rd opposite parties remained exparte. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that the complaint is not maintainable in view of a decision of this State Commission in AP Nos. 1092/94 dated 24.2.95 and AP No. 540/ 95 dated 16.6.95 and the National Commission''s order reported in Telecome District Manager, Hissar v. Dev Raj & Ors. I (1994) CPJ 23 (NC) and also the Rule 457 of Indian Telegraph Rules. Accordingly it dismissed the complaint. It has also awarded costs of Rs. 350/- to the opposite party.

Now in the appeal, after careful consideration, we find no reason whatsoever to differ from the finding of the District Forum. Rule 457 of the Indian Telegraph Rules is in the following terms : "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."

From this Rule, it is clear that even any error, apart from other things mentioned in the telephone directory, will not make the Telephone Department liable to pay compensation. Therefore, we are of the view that the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. However, in our view it is not a fit case in which the District Forum should award cost of Rs. 350/-. Such costs can be awarded only if the District Forum finds that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious. But we find, on reading the judgment of the District Forum, that there is no such finding. In our view also it cannot be said that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious one. The grievance appears to be genuine; but however there is no law that enables the complainant to get compensation in a Consumer Forum on that ground. We therefore, set aside the order of the District Forum with respect to costs awarded and in other respects dismiss the appeal. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed but cost set aside.