Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chandra Sharma, President
& Mrs. Firoza Bano, Member
DIRECTOR, TELECOM (SOUTH) UDAIPUR & ANR.—Appellants
versus
ROSHAN LAL—Respondent
Appeal No. 145 of 1993—Decided on 30.6.1995
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. Neeraj Sethi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mathuresh Nagda, Authorised Representative.
The definition of 'local area' for telephone systems includes all localities within a radial distance of 5 kms from the exchange, and in towns with municipalities or corporations, the locality served by the municipality/corporation is also included.
Headnote:
TELEPHONE CONNECTION - LOCAL AREA - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885 - SUMMARY : The court interpreted the definition of 'local area' for telephone systems, as per the instructions issued by the Director General, Post and Telegraphs. It held that for single exchange systems, the local area includes all localities within a radial distance of 5 kms from the exchange, and in towns with municipalities or corporations, the locality served by the municipality/corporation is also included. The court found that the complainant's village was not within the local area of Udaipur Telephone Exchange, but within the local area of Nai Telephone Exchange, and thus, the complainant was not entitled to a telephone connection from Udaipur Telephone Exchange.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant applied for a telephone connection in 1982 under the general category and was assigned a waiting list number. The complainant's village was within 5 kms of Udaipur Telephone Exchange, but the Telecommunication Department refused to sanction a connection, stating that the village was within the local area of Nai Telephone Exchange, which was established in 1986. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, which directed the Telecommunication Department to sanction a new telephone connection from Udaipur Telephone Exchange and pay compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant's village was not within the local area of Udaipur Telephone Exchange, but within the local area of Nai Telephone Exchange, and thus, the complainant was not entitled to a telephone connection from Udaipur Telephone Exchange.
Issues: Whether the complainant was entitled to a telephone connection from Udaipur Telephone Exchange.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'local area' for telephone systems, as per the instructions issued by the Director General, Post and Telegraphs. It held that for single exchange systems, the local area includes all localities within a radial distance of 5 kms from the exchange, and in towns with municipalities or corporations, the locality served by the municipality/corporation is also included. The court found that the complainant's village was not within the local area of Udaipur Telephone Exchange, but within the local area of Nai Telephone Exchange, and thus, the complainant was not entitled to a telephone connection from Udaipur Telephone Exchange.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, and dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.
Mr. Justice Navin Chandra Sharma, President — This appeal has been filed by the Director, Telecom (South) Udaipur and Telecommunication District Engineer, Panchvati, Udaipur against the order of the District Forum, Udaipur dated 7.10.92 whereby the District Forum directed the opposite parties-appellants to sanction new telephone connection to the complainant from Udaipur Telephone Exchange within one month and further to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. The complainant-respondent was duly served by registered post and he sent a written reply to the appeal. On 8.5.95 Sh. Mathuresh Nagda, sister’s son of the respondent appeared, but the respondent did not appear in-person. We heard arguments in the appeal and perused the record.
2. It is not in dispute that the complainant respondent had on 17.7.82 made an application for telephone connection under general category to District Engineer, Telecommunication Udaipur and he was kept in waiting list and serial number in that list 1870 (A) was assigned to him. The complainant is resident of Village Seesarama, Tehsil Girwa, Distt. Udaipur. The complainant wanted the telephone connection from Udaipur Telephone Exchange. According to the complainant, Village Seesarama, where the complainant had his residential house, was within a radius of 5 kms. from Udaipur Telephone Exchange. It was pleaded by the complainant that the Telecommunication Department had sanctioned telephone connection to persons who were after him in the waiting list, but not to the complainant. The complainant wanted to have STD facility. However, the Telecommunication Department told to the complainant that his village came within the local area of Nai Telephone Exchange. According to the complainant, his village was contiguous to the Municipal limits of Udaipur city and was at a distance of about 5 kms. from the local area of Nai Telephone Exchange. The complainant further pleaded that in Seesarama Village itself telephone No. 27364 had been sanctioned by the Telecommunication Department from Udaipur Telephone Exchange. On the basis of these averments, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Udaipur. The version of the opposite party was that Village Seesarama was within the local area of Nai Telephone Exchange and the complainant had not made any application for sanction of telephone from Nai Telephone Exchange.
3. The District Forum held that the complainant had made an application for telephone connection in the year 1982. Nai Telephone Exchange was established in the year 1986. The District Forum further held that the boundary of Nai Telephone Exchange was not less than the distance of the village of the complainant from Udaipur Telephone Exchange. The complainant wanted STD facility, which was not available in Nai Telephone Exchange. The District Forum held that the complainant could not be compelled to take telephone from Nai Telephone Exchange. On the basis of these findings the District Forum allowed the complaint and granted the relief mentioned above.
4. In this regard the District Forum has referred to a letter of the Director General, Post and Telegraph, New Delhi dated 12.2.74 addressed to all concerned in Telecommunication Department and after referring to the contents of the said letter, the District Forum held that in the local area of Udaipur Telephone Exchange, all area within a radius of 5 kms. from the exchange and included. The above letter dated 12.2.74 of the Director General, Post and Telegraphs is on the subject of local area of telephone systems. In this letter it is mentioned that local area of any Telephone Exchange had been hitherto defined vide instructions issued by office order dated 5.8.60 under which all localities which were homogeneous and contiguous and had a community of interest would be included in the local area. Subsequently by instructions issued on 9.12. 71 the local area of single exchange system was defined to cover all localities
