AKHIL BHARTIYE GRAHAK PANCHAYAT, JEHANBAD VS DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEGRAPHS, GAYA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

BIHAR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PATNA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Sinha, President;
Mr. K.P. Sinha & Mrs. Kalpana Ashok, Members
AKHIL BHARTIYE GRAHAK PANCHAYAT, JEHANBAD—Appellant
versus
DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEGRAPHS, GAYA—Respondent
Complaint Case No. 42 of 1991—Decided on 6.1.1995

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Nawal Kishore Sharma (In person).

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) - Deficiency in service Telephone - Complainant alleging that though advance rental paid for one year bills sent before expiry of that period Telephone connection of five subscribers energised but again disconnected after three days - Opposite Party submitted that if there was any mistake in adjustment they are prepared to rectify Complainant at liberty to check list of deposits made and adjustment done Opposite Party averred when there was fire dislocating entire telephone system attempts made to energise certain telephone connections and in this process there might have been mistakes of cables getting mixed up - No deliberate attempt of disconnection of telephone lines of five subscribers - No deficiency in service on behalf of opposite party - No reason for awarding any compensation - As regards advance rental Department prepared to make necessary correction if any mistake committed - No deficiency in service.
       Held: We have perused the evidence adduced by the two parties and heard the arguments. We are inclined to agree that the fire which broke out at Jehanabad Exchange was the main cause of disruption of the telephone system in Jehanabad. It was vehemently argued by the complainant that it took a long period of eleven months to repair the damages and the telephone started functioning properly only from April, 1992. It was contended that the establishment of an Electronic Exchange should not have taken so much time. Such exchanges were installed at Delhi etc. within a month or so. It is contended on behalf of the opposite party that efforts were being made to restore the disconnection as soon as possible which could only be done after proper installation of the Electronic System and this took time and there was delay on account of various causes. This may at best a case of a lack of efficiency on the part of the Jehanabad Telephone staff. We have failed to appreciate the contention of the complainant that the delay was in any way deliberate. Work was being done to resume the telephone services and the whole process took time. On account of delay the department also was suffering the loss in telephones revenues. It is also possible that a few lines were energised on account of the subscribers belonging to priority category. Some other telephones also got energised in the process of energising these lines which were on priority but later went dead when the defects were corrected. Considering all the aspects of the matter we do not see that there was any deliberate deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party and therefore we do not see any reason to compensate the subscribers listed in Annexure-1 of the complaint petition. (Para 5)
       As regards the advance rental the department is prepared to make necessary correction if any mistakes have been committed in this regard. They have already furnished a chart of the deposits made and adjustments done by them. We hope the subscribers would avail of this opportunity of the department and would get the necessary corrections done if there are any mistakes. (Para 6)
       Result: Complaint dismissed.

ORDER

Mr. K.P. Sinha, Member—This is a complaint filed by Akhil Bhartiye Grahak Panchayat, Jehanabad against the Divisional Engineer, Gaya Telegraphs Division and the Accounts Officer through Divisional Engineer, Gaya Telegraphs Division. It has been contended in the complaint petition that 44 subscribers listed in Annexure 1 of the complaint petition deposited their advance rental for one year before 16th August, 1990 on or after which date the services were provided. Inspite of it the opposite parties demanded rentals for the period for which the payments have already been made i.e.; rental was demanded for the period 1.6.91 td 31.7.91 for which period the advance rental payments were made and therefore any bill for the rental could only pertain to the period after 16.8.91. It has also been contended that due to a fire in the Telephone Exchange on 1.5.91 the telephone services got completely disrupted. In case of five subscribers however detailed in Annexure-3 of the complaint petition the telephone services were resumed on 29.7.91 but were again disconnected within three days which was a deficiency in service. It has also been contended that the telephone connections of the subscribers detailed in Annexue 4 were resumed. But other subscribers were left high and dry. The complainant has therefore claimed the following reliefs :

1. Those subscribers who paid the bills as per the demand made by the department which included rental for the period of 1.6.91 to 31.7.91 should be refunded the excess amount paid on account of double payment of rental for this period alongwith 18% interest.

2. Subscribers who have not paid bills should be furnished revised bill.

3. All the 44 subscribers as per Annexure 1 be paid a compensation of Rs. 500/- each on account of over-pricing of the service.

4. The five consumers listed in Annexure-3 whose services were resumed but were again disconnected after three days without any reason be paid Rs. 3,000/- as compensation.

5. All the subscribers except those in Annexure-4 whose telephone services remained inoperative should be paid Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for disconnection without notice and providing the reconnections after the burning the exchange on arbitrary basis.

2. The opposite parties in reply to the allegations made in the complaint petition have averred that even though the advance rental was paid for one year bills were sent before the expiry of that period because the amounts deposited were adjusted on account of telephone charges for the user of the telephone. The complainant in this regard has contended that such adjustments have not been made under law. The department however adjusted the amount against the advance deposits made. It was submitted by the opposite parries before us that if there was any mistake in the adjustment they are prepared to rectify it. A list of the deposits made and adjustment done has been furnished. The complainants are at liberty to check this and find whether there have been any mistakes of omission and commission. No specific case was brought to our notice in this regard.

3. As regards energising of the telephone connection of five subscribers and again disconnecting them after three days, it has been averred by the opposite parties that no connection was given excep t to subscribers on priority basis who were entitled for the same viz. the Central Government, State Government and other such special subscribers category subscribers. About five subscribers mentioned in Annexure 3 it is contended that when there was a fire dislocating the entire telephone system at Jehanabad attempts were made to energise the certain telephone connections as per the policy of the department to restore the service on priority basis to State & Central Government Department etc. and in this process there might have been some mistakes of cables getting mixed up and energising the telephone lines of these subscribers. When the mistakes were rectified their telephone aga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document