DIESEL CENTRE TRANSPORT vs COMMERCIAL OFFICER (SOUTH EAST I), MADRAS TELEPHONES

THIS apeal is directed against the order dated 15.5.1997 in O.P. No. 323/1996 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South). The appellant is the complainant while the respondents are the opposite parties.

NECESSARY and requisite facts may in brevity be related for understanding the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action. A partnership firm under the name and style of "Diesel Centre Transport", it is said was constituted in the year 1960. The said partnership firm consisted of three partners namely, (1) Mohammed Hussain, (2) T. Viswanathan, and (3) D. Sriraman. The said firm applied for the installation of a telephone in the premises of the partnership by giving a joint declaration by all the partners constituting the firm in the year 1963. As per the joint declaration, a telephone was sanctioned by the Department and as a matter of fact, a telephone bearing No. 452389 was installed in the premises of the firm on 14.12.1963.

It is alleged in the complaint that the partnership firm was dissolved in the year 1965. What is further alleged is that one of the partners namely Mohammed Hussain, after the dissolution of the firm, became the sole proprietor and he was transacting business in the same old name namely Diesel Centre Transport as a proprietary concern in the same premises of the partnership firm at No. 493, Mount Road, Madras-35.

THE telephone installed therein in the name of the partnership continued and on 19.12.1994, it appears an application was given to the opposite parties to shift the said telephone which was functioning at the old premises to the address at No. 55, Iyyasami Pillai Street, Pudupet, Chennai. The opposite parties demanded from the proprietor Mohammed Hussain to produce the dissolution deed of the partnership firm for the shifting of the telephone as requested for by him. The dissolution deed, as required by the opposite parties was not at all produced by the said Mohammed Hussain. Consequently, the shifting as requested for was not ordered.

THIS sort of an act on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant would say is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Alleging the factors as above, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite parties in pith and substance contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. Since the said Mohammed Hussain, the alleged sole proprietor of Diesel Centre Transport did not produce the dissolution deed of the partnership firm, they were unable to accede to his request. The complaint, as such, is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and on the finding so recorded the complaint filed was dismissed without costs.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above the complainant resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of its choice namely M/s. R. Thirugnanam, V.S. Ramesh Kumar and S. Selvaraj. On service of process, the respondents/opposite parties entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice namely learned Counsel Mr. R. Lakshminarayanan.

We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. M. Sivaraman, representing learned Counsel M/s. Thirugnanam and two others appearing for the appellant/complainant and learned Counsel R. Lakshminarayanan, representing the respondents/opposite parties.

EVEN at the outset, we may point out that there are absolutely no merits and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The reasons are manifold. There is no dispute at all that the telephone bearing No. 452389 was allotted only to the partnership firm going by the name Diesel Centre Transport in the year 1963. EVEN according to the complainant, Mohammed Hussain, the sole proprietor of Diesel Centre Transport, the old partnership firm was dissolved in the year 1965. The factum of the partnership firm becoming a sole proprietary concern was not at all intimated by the complainant to the Telephone Department. But, nonetheless, the telephone continued in the name of the old partnership concern till up to 19.12.1994 the date on which the complainant gave an application for the shifting of the telephone to a new address of the said proprietary concern. It is only at this juncture, the opposite parties were able to understand, that too from the complainant, that the earlier partnership was dissolved in the year 1965. There is nothing wrong on the part of the opposite parties to demand the dissolution deed of the earlier partnership concern from the complainant for shifting the telephone. It is also an admitted fact that the dissolution deed demanded by the opposite parties was not at all produced by the complainant. As a consequence, the opposite parties did not pass any order on the application for the shifting of the telephone. The question is whether the refusal on the part of the opposite parties to shift the telephone would tantamount to deficiency in service, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The answer to the question can''t be anyone other than an emphatic "No" on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Rules have been framed by the Government as respects the transfer of telephones by the issuance of G.O. No. 3-11/83-PHA, dated 22.7.1983. The rules under the G.O. for the transfer of telephones had been made under five captions numbered as A, B, C, D, E. Caption B is relatable to transfer of telephone of firm, Company, organisation, institution excluding Government Departments, Government Institutions, Public Undertakings and Antonomous Organisations. The relevant rule under the said caption is B.1(7) and it deals with the sale or dissolution of a firm and it reads as under : "If a firm is sold to another party and the sale proceeds are not less than Rs. 20,000/-, the telephone may be transferred to the new firm. In the case of a dissolution of a partnership firm, transfer may be allowed to any one of the partners after agreement is obtained from all partners of the dissolved firm."

It is thus crystal clear from the rule as extracted above that it is implicitly necessary for Mohammed Hussain, who claims to be the Sole Proprietor of Diesel Centre Transport to produce relevant records to the effect that the partnership firm, as a matter of fact, had been dissolved and he became a sole proprietor of the said concern in the manner allowed by law and unless and until he places such materials on record, he cannot expect the opposite parties to allow the transfer application he had filed. To put it otherwise, in the absence of non-observance of the formalities by the complainant, Mohammed Hussain, sole proprietor of the proprietary concern, the opposite parties can''t be expected to order transfer of the telephone as prayed for by him and such refusal on the part of the opposite parties will not definitely tantamount to deficiency in service on their part. The Forum below, of course, rendered a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, of course, for altogether different reasons. But the sordid fact remains that the finding that was recorded by the Forum below is that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with which we also concur for altogether different reasons.

IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.