DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION) vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

-THE brief facts of the case as incorporated in an application filed by the Director General (Investigation and Registration) under Section 10(a)(iii)/36-B(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 are stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the application which will be referred to as below : "(1) That Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) is a Government of India Enterprise engaged in providing telecommunication services to the subscribers. THE respondent is a a licence of Department of Telecommunications to provide the services in telecommunication field in Delhi, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane (M.C. Area). It provides telephone connections to subscribers/consumers under different schemes namely "Own your Telephone Scheme " (OYT), "Tatkal Scheme" under special or general categories. (2) That the applicant has received a complaint from Consumer Guidance Society of India, Mumbai alleging unfair trade practices on the part of the respondent (MTNL). In the complaint, the Complainant Association has alleged that a consumer is required to make an initial deposit of Rs. 5,000/- at the time of registration for a telephone connection under the OYT scheme and the subscriber gets a rebate in rental @ 240/- per year (Rs. 40/- in the BI-monthly bill) which is less than interest @ 5% on the deposit made by the subscriber. According to the complainant, the initial deposit of Rs. 5,000/- is adjusted by the respondent @ 40/- in the bi-monthly bill for a period of 20 years and the total rebate works out to Rs. 4,800/- and the balance amount of Rs. 200/- is deducted from the deposit of Rs. 5,000/- as book keeping charges and thus no amount is refunded to the subscriber after 20 years when he surrenders the telephone connection. THE Complainant Consumer Association has alleged that the initial deposit of Rs. 5,000/- made by the subscriber under OYT scheme is thus forfeited by the respondent. THE rebate allowed by the respondent in the bill should be in the nature of interest accrued on the principal that is deposited by the subsriber as initial deposit. A copy of the letter of complaint dated 21st December, 2000 received from the Consumer Guidance Society of India is enclosed as Annexure -I."

THE short question on the above basis, which is raised in the application is with regard to the refund of deposit of Rs. 5,000/- in case the subscriber choses to surrender the telephone connection under the OYT scheme. THE Commission passed the following order on 15th May, 2002 : "Although a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent, learned Advocate for the respondent is not in a position to state categorically whether the Rule 434 authorises the respondent to forefeit the unadjusted amount deposited by the subscribers under the OYT scheme if the telephone connection is surrendered before the expiry of 20 years. As prayed, the case is adjourned to 14th August, 2002 for consideration. In the meantime, respondent is also directed to tell us whether the current scheme is still existent or it has been discontinued." The learned Counsel for the respondent has placed before us the relevant Telephone Rules relating to refund. As stated in Swamy''s Treatise on Telephone Rules the following may be referred to as below : "Chapter 8 Refund and Rebate Refund of OYT Deposit for closed connections If a telephone connection sanctioned under OYT Scheme is surrendered within the period of 20 years from the date of installation, a refund of initial deposit made by the subscriber will be allowed to him after deducting therefrom a sum total to 1/20th of the initial deposit, for every year or part of the year for which the telephone connection has been in use of the subscriber. If, however, the telephone is surrendered within five years of installation, the amount of refund shall not exceed three-fourths of the initial deposit made by the subscriber."

As regards allegations in Para 2 of the application, adjustment of 96% of the deposit by way of rebate and 4% towards book keeping charges is as per rules provided in Section III-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules. In absence of any serious arguments in support of the allegations advanced, the same cannot be said to constitute unfair/restrictive trade practices as alleged. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to continue the present proceedings. The same stand disposed of. Application disposed of.