ASHOK GIANCHAND JODHANI vs PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER AHMEDABAD TELECOM DISTRICT

SHRI Ashok Gianchand Jodhani has approached the Commission with a complaint regarding deficiency in service provided by the Principal General Manager, Ahmedabad Telecom District in respect of telephone No. 2821112. It has been alleged therein that on 2nd August, 1997 a complaint was lodged regarding disturbance in voice in the above telephone, and though two linemen came but instead of any improvement, the telephone became dead. Again a complaint was made to the Deputy General Manager (East) on 18th August, 1997 but in vain. It has been further complained that the respondent is guilty of adoption of monopolistic and unfair trade practices and by way of relief it has been prayed that the telephone should be made functional and rebate in the rental for the period it remained dead may be given in addition to compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant.

THE complaint was entrusted to Director (Research) for investigation. In the Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) submitted by Director (Research), it has been mentioned that the respondent''s case is that the telephone, in question, is in the name of the complainant''s father who expired long ago on 22nd March, 1978 and as per Rule 430 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, the complainant was required to give notice of the subscriber''s death and also to apply for permission to retain the connection. It has also been stated that the complainant is reported to have shifted the telephone from one place to another without the permission of the Competent Authority in violation of Rule 429 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. As regards the rebate in rental, it has been clarified by the respondent that rebate is allowed if the telephone remains out of order for seven days and as the complainant''s telephone did not remain out of order for the minimum period, of seven days, he was not entitled to any rebate in rental. It has also been highlighted by the respondent that the complainant is not a subscriber as the connection has not been transferred to his name, the present complaint is not maintainable. The Indian Telegraph Rules are very clear with regard to the death or change of title of a subscriber and also with regard to transfer of a telephone connection in the name of legal heir or successor of the deceased subscriber. It is not denied or disputed that legally the present complainant is not a subscriber as the telephone is still in the name of his deceased father and even though he expired more than 20 years ago, the telephone connection has not been transferred in the name of the complainant. Moreover, as per complaint, two linemen visited the premises of the complainant when he made a complaint and the telephone was attended to even though the complainant was not satisfied with the efforts of the linemen. From the above facts, it is quite clear that the complainant is not a subscriber and the respondent is required to provide service to a subscriber only. The charge of unfair trade practice by and on behalf of the respondent would be sustainable if the alleged unfair trade practice is qua the subscribers and in this case if the complaint had not been attended to and if two linemen had not visited the complainant''s premises. The question whether the complainant is entitled to rebate and has also been addressed by the respondent and it has been clarified that rebate in the rental was not admissible as the period during which the telephone remained out of order was less than seven days. There is no evidence to support the complainant''s contention that it remained out of order for more than seven days. In view of the aforesaid reasons, more particularly the fact that the complainant is not a subscriber, the charge of adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices by the respondent is not sustainable. The complaint deserves to be and is hereby rejected. Complaint dismissed.