CHENNAI TELEPHONES vs V. RAVICHANDRAN

THE complainant''s case is that he applied for a PCO Connection on 31.12.1997. It was sanctioned on 19.2.1999. THE complainant paid the deposit of Rs. 1,000/- on 15.7.1999. An order was passed on 18.1.2000 to provide the PCO and directed the complainant to contact the 2nd opposite party. THE complainant observed all the necessary formalities. Still the PCO has not been provided. THE complainant issued a legal notice. THEre is no response. Hence there is deficiency in service. THE complainant prays for damages accordingly.

THE opposite parties filed their objections pleading as follows : THE complainant is not a consumer. It has been held by the National Commission that a franchise holder as the hirer of PCO is not a consumer. THE complainant applied for local PCO to be installed at Vanian Chathram, Alamathi Post, Ambedkar Nagar, Chennai-52. Provisional sanction was accorded on 19.2.1999. It was granted subject to certain conditions. THE complainant submitted the documents as advised and paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as deposit. THE executive authorities of the Red Hills Exechange, on receipt of the advice, inspected the address of the complainant and found that the complainant was not served by the Chennai Telephones and it was beyond the jurisdiction of Red Hills Exchange area. Hence they cancelled the advice notice and intimated the same to the complainant and asked him to contract the Commercial Officer of the opposite parties for further action. THE complainant did not approach the Commercial Officer but has filed this complaint. THE PCO could not be provided to the complainant as his address was beyond the jurisdiction of Red Hills Exchange and, therefore, he was advised to contract the Telephone Department authorities at Thiruvallur District. THE complainant is not a consumer. THEre is no deficiency in service. The lower Forum passed an order directing the opposite parties to give a new PCO service connection to the complainant within a period of one month. Hence the appeal.

The complainant has given his address as residing at Ambedkar Nagar, Alamathi Village, Red Hills, Chennai. To the said address, he has requested for a PCO connection under self-employment scheme. No doubt he has also paid the deposit. But it is seen from the records produced by the opposite parties that what was issued was only a provisional order and that the allotment is subject to area confirmation and technical feasibility and that the allotment will be cancelled if the area does not fall under the North-West Zone. The complainant has given his installation address as "V. Ravichandran, Vanian Chattram, Ambedkar Nagar, Alamadhi Post, Chennai-600 052". Under Ex. B-4, the opposite party has, after inspection, stated that they orally informed the complainant''s address pertains to Tamil Nadu Circle area and that the complainant was asked to meet the Commercial Officer regarding the matter and that the area falls under Valliyur Exchange of Thiruvallur Exchange and, therefore, the complainant has to approach the Commercial Officer to pursue further and approach the Deputy General Manager (Chingleput), Eldams Road, Chennai. It is followed by another communication dated 21.12.2000 wherein they have stated that the verification of the address by the Sub Divisional Engineer is to the effect that the address is in the Tamil Nadu Circle, Thiruvallur District Area and, therefore, the provisional allotment has been cancelled. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is not explained by the complainant as to how the complaint is maintainable, firstly for the reason that what was granted was only a provisional allotment subject to certain conditions of which area is mentioned as one of the important conditions. The opposite parties have, after inspection, informed the complainant that the building where the installation of PCO is sought for falls within the area covered by the Thiruvallur District and that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Chennai Telephones area. Here in this case, there is no hiring of service as such, but what has been paid by the complainant was only an initial deposit for providing the facility of PCO. The facility has not been provided because the area does not fall within the Chennai Telephones District. Therefore, the provisional allotment has also been cancelled. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no hiring of service or deficiency in service in this case. Further, the PCO connection could not be granted because the area falls outside the jurisdiction. Futrther, the National Commission has held in a case in R.P. No. 262/1993 reported in CPR (IV) 1994 (1) 718, that the complainant in such cases, would be only a franchise holder and that the franchise holders are not consumers. The lower Forum states that since the connection has not been given so far, this decision will not apply. When the connection has not been given and the said decision cannot apply, it is not known as to how, when there is only a request for installation and there is no concluded contract between the parties, the question of hiring of service by the complainant or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties will arise at all. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is clear that this is a case where there is no deficiency in service as such and that the complainant is not a consumer and the order of the lower Forum is, therefore, not sustainable.

IN the result, this appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 250/-. The order passed by the lower Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed, but without costs. Appeal allowed.