TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER vs RAMANAND ROY

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 4th December, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Patna in Complaint Case No. 288 of 92. The complainant before the District Forum is the respondent here and the appellant here was Opp Party before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case as alleged by the complainant before the District Forum may be briefly stated. THE complainant was having a telephone connection bearing No. 58049 while he was residing in Mohalla Kankarbagh at Patna. But subsequently he changed his residence and started living in a rented house in Magistrate Colony in Khajpura at Patna. On his request his telephone connection was transferred to his new residential house and his telephone No. was 235453. His new telephone connection started working fifteen days after its installation but soon thereafter it developed some defects and it started giving low sound for which he made complaint on telephone No. 198 on 19.12.91,20.12.91 and 28.12.91. But inspite of this complaint the Opp. Party did not take any action and thereafter the complainant asked his son to meet the Junior Engineer. But inspite of the complaint made to the Junior Engineer by his son and the complaint being recorded in the complaint register nothing was done by the department to correct the working of his telephone. THEreafter the son of the complainant complained to Sri Diwedi, the Divisional Engineer who dialed his telephone in his presence and it was found that the telephone was working and it was being used by resident of house No. A-65, situated in that Magistrates Colony. But even thereafter nothing was done by the department. Hence the complainant filed a complaint to Director General on 27.1.92 and on the same day again complained to the Divisional Manager Sri Diwedi who directed his Sub-ordinate Officer on telephone to make the telephone operative by 28.1.92. But inspite of that the telephone of the complainant remained virtually dead. Hence the complainant filed his case before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension and financial loss to which the complainant was put due to negligence on the part of the Opp. Party. On being noticed the Opp. Party appeared and filed written version alleging that the telephone of the complainant was transferred and no complaint was ever filed in respect thereof and that for the first time the complainant had made complaint regarding the non-functioning of his telephone on 19.12.91 which on investigation was found to be due to fault in cable and the same was corrected on 27.12.91.

The complainant in support of his case examined one Sri Sarwan Singh, who happens to be his landlord and Sri Vinod Kumar Rai who is his son as witnesses. The Opp. Party did not examine any witness on their behalf.

THE District Forum on the allegations made on behalf of the complainant and the averments on the written statement on behalf of the Opp. Party and the evidences adduced on behalf of the complainant passed the impugned order. THE relevant para of the order containing the findings of the District Forum and the direction given by the District Forum runs as follows:- "UPPAR KATHIT GAVAHO AVAM KAGJATO KO DEKHENE SE SAF PATA CHALTA HAI KI VADI KA TELEPHONE SAT MAHINE SE KHARAB REHA AUR UNKA TELEPHONE KA DURUPYOG HUA HAI. AGAR VADI KA TELEPHONE CHALU HAI TO THIK HAI AUR AGAR NAHI CHALU HAI TO VIPAKSHI USHE TURANTH CHALU KAR DANGE AUR AGAR CHALU NAHI KARANGE TO 50/- RUPYE PRATIDEEN KE HISAB SE HARJANA DENA PARAYAGA. VADI NE UPPER KATHIT SAT MAHINE KA KOI BHI BILL VIPAKSHI PRASTUT NAHI KARANGE CHOKI VADI UKAT SAT MAHINE KI AVADHI KE DANDAR NAHI HAI. VAPAKSHI 1,000/- (EK HAZAR) RUPEES KA HARZANA VADI KO DANGE AUR UPPER KATHIT RAKAM VADI KE BHAVISYA KE BILLO MAIN SMANJASH KAR LIYA JAYEGA. IS ADESH KE SATH YEH, VAD NISPADIT KIYA JATA HAI. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the findings of the District Forum are not based on the evidence adduced by the complainant, rather it is based on guess and assurances. There appears substance in the submission of the appellant. The District Forum has come to the finding that the telephone of the complainant was inoperative and non-functional for seven months. But the complainant did not come forward to say so on oath and his son who was examined as witness No. 2 on his behalf has said in his examination-in chief that the telephone worked only for ten days to fifteen days and it remained non-functional for six to seven months. But in his cross examination he has very clearly admitted that he can not say as to from which date to which date his telephone was not functioning. In this situation the District Forum ought not to have placed reliance on his above evidence in examination-in-chief.

MOREOVER, the District Forum has directed not to send any bill in respect of seven months because the complainant is not liable to pay any bill in respect thereof. Such finding can not be justified without there being any finding as to during which period the telephone of the complainant was not functioning. Further the District Forum was not justified in giving the above directions because that is beyond the scope of the reliefs mentioned under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) as it stood before its amendment. We are supported in our view by the observations made by the National Commission in A.P. State Electricity Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association, I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC) in which the National Commission has held that the Redressal Forums under the Act can not give any relief beyond those mentioned in Section 14 of the Act and it can not direct to do something or to desist from doing something. Moreover, the District Forum was not justified to pass composite order. Under the circumstances, the impugned order can not be sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is hereby set aside. The case is, however, being remanded to the District Forum for disposal in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Appeal allowed.