Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD
Honble Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President; Dr. R.K. Shah, Member
AREA MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION & OTHERS—Appellants/Opposite Parties
versus
N.P. MEHTA—Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal No. 8 of 1992—Decided on 13.2.1992
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. Jayant Patel, Advocate.
For the Respondent:In person with Mr. M.R. Sharma, Advocate.
Deficiency in two-way telephone service amounts to deficiency in service, and the service provider is obligated to take measures to improve services to the satisfaction of subscribers.
Headnote:
Telephone Department - Deficiency in Telephone Services - The court confirmed the order of the District Forum, finding deficiency in services provided by the Telephone Department and emphasizing the need for improvement in services to satisfy subscribers.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a telephone subscriber, complained about the deficient services provided by the Telephone Department, including one-sided telephone operation and low call volume.
Finding of the Court:
The court found evidence of deficiency in services and confirmed the District Forum's order, emphasizing the need for the Telephone Department to improve services to satisfy subscribers.
Issues: Complaint of deficient telephone services, argument of equal service provision by the Department, and the question of awarding damages.
Ratio Decidendi: Deficiency in two-way telephone service amounts to deficiency in service, and the Department should take measures to improve services to the satisfaction of subscribers.
Final Decision: The appeal by the Telephone Department was dismissed with costs, and the order of the District Forum was confirmed. The Department was directed to pay costs to the respondent.
Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President—This is an appeal by the Telephone Department against the order of the District Forum, Kachchh at Bhuj. The respondent is an original complainant who is subscriber of telephone No. 22930 and 86270 at Adipur. According to the complainant the telephone No. 86270 installed at his residence is not giving proper services. According to the complainant the telephone services catered by the appellant at Adipur is very defective inasmuch as at the time when the complaint was filed it was working one sided i.e. the subscriber can telephone from his telephone but he will not be able to receive it from outside. Even if the subscribers receive telephone calls from outside it will be so low that they will not be able to understand anything. Though Adipur and Gandhidham are in one Municipality and calls from Gandhidham to Adipur and Adipur to Gandhidham are considered to be local calls, there are two exchanges, one at Gandhidham and another at Adipur. The Adipur exchange is very old and defective and is not giving satisfactory service at all. The complainant has produced affidavit of so-many subscribers who have supported the case of the subscriber complainant.
2. 2.The complainant argues before us that the appellant is taking the same bi-monthly rent as is taken for Gandhidham and other places whereas the services are so deteriorated that the Department cannot charge more than half the charges because they are providing one way service. The complainant had many grievances against the judgment of the District Forum also but since he has not appealed we have not permitted him to raise further contentions. The complainant wanted to tell us that the services have become so bad, it is practically no service at all.
3. 3.Mr. Jayant Patel, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants has strenuously argued that they are providing the services equally to all and there is no discrimination against the respondent/complainant. According to Mr. Patel assuming that there is some complaint regarding deficiency of service, the Department is suffering from stringency of finance and cannot afford to instal new machinery. In short, Mr. Patel wanted to say that we have to accept what is available. In the iastant case, we are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Patel.
The telephone service is monopolised by the Central Government. No private agency is permitted to instal telephone communication without their licence. If they offer the services and charge the same rent as is charged'at other places, a consumer would naturally expect efficiency in service. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Department is suffering from financial stringencies, the Department should charge less or may not instal the services at all till they are in a position to provide efficient services.
Mr. Patel consistently argued that he is not accepting any deficiency in service and based his argument on assumptions.
4. Considering the affidavit filed by so many persons and the record, we do not find any error in the judgment of the District Forum. The evidence on record clearly suggests that there is some deficiency in services. The only question is as to what relief the Court could provide in the circumstances. The District Forum has not awarded any damages. No cross appeal has been filed. Therefore question of awarding damages does not arise. However if we consider the definition of deficiency itbecomes very clear that if the instrument does not work both ways efficiently it would amount to deficiency in service and for that either the damages can be awarded or the other side can be directed to return some portion of the charges. The District Forum has expressed the hope that in due course the Telephone Department will improve the services. We also are of the same opinion that the Department should take all possible measures to see that the services are improved to the satisfaction of the subscribers and that too, within reasonable time
