AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is preferred by opposite party No. 1 in the Complaint No. 549/90 on the file of the District Forum, Bangalore Urban, aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.92 whereby the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10/- jointly or severally with costs.
THE case of the complainant was that on 5.9.90 he went to PCO at Frazer Town for telephone to No. 361512. Opposite party No. 2 was the person manning the booth. THE number dialled went to a wrong number. On the second attempt, it went to correct number. THE telephone booth man collected Re. 1/- even for the wrong number attempt in addition to the call fee of Re. 1/-. THE complainant being user of the public telephone on payment of charges is a consumer and the telephone department as well as the man operating the booth have charged him for the mistake of getting wrong number. Hence the complaint for refund of the excess money collected and for damages. Opposite party No. 1 has filed version denying the allegations. The District Forum after considering the pleadings and affidavit, has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order, opposite party No. 1 has preferred the appeal alleging that the order is improper, unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
We have called for the records of the District Forum and received. We have heard the arguments of both sides.
OPPOSITE Party No. 1 has filed its version and pleaded that on verification, opposite party No. 2 was not able to recollect any incident of collecting extra fee for wrong call. OPPOSITE Party No. 2 himself has not filed the version. Complainant has filed his affidavit in respect of the claim. The opposite parties have not filed any counter affidavit. OPPOSITE party No. 1 is a franchiser and opposite party No. 2 is franchise holder. OPPOSITE Party No. 2 pays the call charges to opposite party No 1 and he is entitled for certain percentage for attending the P.C.O. The wrong call may be originated due to wrong dialing by the franchise holder (i.e., booth holder) or may be due to mechanical defect in the instrument or line fault. The complainant, in para 6 of his affidavit, has stated as follows : "6. I submit that I have completed the Telephone Operator''s Course in 1982. As a trained person in the said course I know fully well that unless there is an error on the part of the operator, i.e., human error, there is no chance of the telephone being connected to a wrong number. The machine never goes wrong. Only inefficient fiddling with the telephone set makes the machine to connect the line with wrong number."
Such being emphatic claim of the complainant, it would be an error to hold the telephone department responsible for the mistakes committed by the booth holder or franchise holder. Hence, we are of the opinion, that the order passed against the appellant-Telephone department may be set aside. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order directing the appellant jointly and severally liable to pay the sum of Rs. 10/- (Rupees ten only) is set aside. The order as against opposite party No. 2 shall remain intact. No order as to costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed.