TELECOM DIST. MANAGER, TELECOM vs UPPALAPATI LAKSHMINARAYANA

IN this appeal the opposite parties in CD No. 245/1997 (appellants before us) question the order of the Ongole District Forum dated 24.10.1998 partly allowing that CD and directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment and also costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant in that CD who is the respondent in this appeal.

THE case of the complainant was that he was having a telephone for his residence at Addanki and also a telephone for his residence and office at Ongole. Those telephones were provided by the Telecom Department of Union of India represented by the appellants. He was paying the rentals and the bills regularly. His grievance before the District Forum was that in the new directory issued by the Telecom Department for Addanki in the year 1997 his name and Addanki telephone number 63262 were not shown, and that in the new telephone directory issued for Ongole for the same year his Ongole telephone number 22276 was shown also as the number for the telephone of R.T.C. enquiry and that consequently the complainant was inconvenienced and harassed a great deal by calls from persons seeking information from the R.T.C. Before approaching the District Forum, the complainant complained to the authorities of the Telecom Department. They admitted the mistake but they only promised to correct in the directories for the next year i.e. 1998 and they did not undertake to publish errata to make amends for the mistakes committed by them. They admitted that the mistakes were due to oversight and contended that as they were not intentional there was no deficiency in service.

Before the District Forum the appellants relied on the statement made in the directory that "while every care is taken in compiling the directory, the Telecom District Manager cannot recognise any claim for compensation, if any entry is abbreviated, cancelled, omitted or inserted incorrectly either as to the working space or position in the directory". In the evidence it came out on behalf of the complainant that every day 20 to 30 calls were being received by him making enquiries in respect of R.T.C. and some of the callers were also using abusive language, etc. and that suggestions to the appellants that they should make a paper publication or an advertisement through SITI cable were not complied with by them.

CONSIDERING all the aspects and in view of the admission of the appellants that mistakes occurred which they did not immediately rectify, the District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and, in view of the fact that they took one year for the corrections to be made, further held that awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The appellants question this order in the appeal. Mr. Hari Babu appearing for the Counsel for the appellants relies on Indian Telegraph Rules 452 and 457 but he has not furnished the book containing these Rules. He has only placed before us what purports to be xerox copy of page No. 942 of Swamy''s Treatise on Telephone Rules. Rule 457 therein is to the effect that the Department will not be liable to pay compensation "on account of any entry in or omission from the telephone directory or of any error therein". He also submits that Rule 452 provides that "a copy of the telephone directory shall be supplied free of charge for each telephone, extension" etc., and that therefore the supply of telephone directory was a free service.

WE are of the view that those Rules are of no avail to the appellants in the present case. Rule 452 no doubt mandates that copy of the telephone directory shall be supplied to each telephone rented by the subscriber. That only exemplifies that rent paid by the subscriber also includes the supply of one telephone directory without charging separately for the same, for an extra copy, price has to be paid. Without a telephone directory the telephone instrument supplied by the Telecom Department cannot be readily used because the basis for contracting others with ease through telephone is the directory which furnishes the telephone numbers of others. Directory enquiry of the Telecom Department also depends on the directory; furnishing a correct telephone directory constitutes an essential part of rendering efficient service by the Telecom Department. The contention of the learned Counsel Mr. Hari Babu that the supply of telephone directory was free, is not correct because it is an integral part of providing telecom services which necessarily includes not merely providing a telephone connection but also furnishing information regarding the telephone numbers of all having telephone connections so as to facilitate contacting them through telephone because without that information use of telephone would be rendered inconvenient and cumbersome - every time enquiries have to be made about telephone numbers. It may be that mistakes in telephone directories may occur by oversight. When a mistake is noticed, it is incumbent on the Telecom Department to make corrections immediately. Not making amends and non-rectification without delay is itself deficiency in service. To state that till the next directory is issued no correction will be made - which may be beyond one year - and to ask the subscriber to suffer the consequences of their admitted mistakes will then amounts to aggravated remissness on the part of the Telecom Department which cannot be countenanced in any service rendering agency. The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat v. General Manager, Ahmedabad Telecom District, 1991 (2) CPR 186, took a similar view. It held as follows : "... the sole purpose of taking commercial activities by the State is always with the object of serving the subject, especially when the State has got a monopoly of a particular service; it has both the duty as also the obligation, to see that the subscribers of the telephones get all the possible facilities, service and attention.... The telephone subscriber is entitled to know of the change in the telephone number as well as the number of the new subscriber and to see that adequate facility is provided by the Department free of costs whenever the changes are made after the publication of the Telephone Directory. This obligation is an incidental and an invioable right of a subscriber who pays to the Department, not only for the telephone rental but also for availing of the telephone services by dialling the calls. This obligation is greater and most onerous when the State is concerned with providing these facilities by providing monopoly in the subject."

WE find in the present case not merely deficiency in service on the part of the Telecom Department but also exhibition by the authorities concerned of supine indifference and callousness towards the subscriber. The only question that remains is whether the District Forum was right in awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. In matters like this compensation for harassment, nuisance and gross inconvenience caused to the complainant and to the inmates of the house of the complainant, cannot be measured precisely in terms of money. A retributive measure also should be adopted in awarding damages in matters like this. Under the circumstances, we are inclined to reduce the compensation amount of Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- in view of the fact that the complainant is an Advocate having considerable standing in the District Head Quarters at Ongole and Addanki. It is stated that at the relevant time, the complainant was a Panel Advocate for State Bank of India, Addanki Main Branch, Addanki Agricultural Development Branch, Martur, Konidena, etc. In the circumstances we are of the view that at least a token compensation of Rs. 15,000/- should be awarded. The said amount shall be paid within six weeks from today i.e. by 24.5.1999. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed but on the facts of the present case, we are inclined to award costs to the respondent. The appellants shall pay the costs of Rs. 500/- to the respondent. Appeal partly allowed.