CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs V.S. NADKARNI

- THE State Commission of Maharashtra, by its Order dated 20th September, 1991 in Complaint No. 97/90 on its file, had held that the respondent complainant was entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 2.57 lacs for the damage caused to the roads in 1985, of the Complainant Association by the appellant Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. In addition. the State Commission have also awarded Rs. 15,000/- for cleaning of the storm water trenches dug by the appellant while laying the telephone cables.

THE appellant has challenged that Order before this Commission on various grounds: THE relevant facts in brief are: THE complainant, which is the apex body of the Housing Societies called Shivashrushthi Cooperative Housing Societies Association Ltd., had in its complaint petition submitted that the members of the society had contributed for the construction of the internal roads of the residential colony and that the internal roads are the private property of the Respondent Association and are maintained inside the colony by the complainants. Some of the residents, who are also the members of the said society, have obtained telephone connections from the appellant Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. While laying the telephone connections to the subscribers, who are also members of the housing association, the appellant MTNL dug trenches across the roads and caused substantial damage to the properties of the complainant and did not repair the roads thereafter. The State Commission observed that the appellant MTNL extended its service of providing telephone connections to the members of the housing societies situated in the housing complex. Therefore, it held that the members as well as the societies are the "Consumers" and therefore, that the complaint was maintainable before the Commission. It stressed that the complaint essentially concerns deficiency in the services to be performed by MTNL, inasmuch as the MTNL had dug trenches inside the complex, as a result of which the residents had to face great difficulties and to spend huge amounts on repairs. According to the State Commission, as the MTNL had provided service and laid cables within the housing complex for consideration, it was their duty to restore the roads to the original position after digging and laying the cables. The State Commission concluded that by failing to repair them, the MTNL rendered deficient service and was negligent in rendering service to the complainant and therefore, liable for compensating the housing complex society.

The process of digging up roads for the purpose of laying of telephone cables is not part of service hired by the telephone consumers. If there is any deficiency in the telephone service such as non-functioning and malfunctioning of the telephone, raising of inflated bills etc., that is in connection with the working of the telephone facility provided to and enjoyed by the telephone subscribers, there will be deficiency in telephone service to the consumers. But the manner of laying the telephone cables, the damage, if any, to the property through/which these cables pass, is not the concern of the telephone subscribers. It is open to the owners of the property which might have been damaged in the process of laying telephone cables to claim compensation from the MTNL, but such property owners, as such, are not the beneficiaries of the telephone service nor have they hired the services of the MTNL for consideration. They cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be deemed to be "consumers" as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are, therefore, surprised that the State Commission should have disregarded the objection taken by the appellant in its written reply that the grievance of the complainant respondent did not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The appeal succeeds and the Order of the State Commission is set aside. There is no Order as costs. Appeal allowed.