GENERAL MANAGER, SURAT TELECOM DISTRICT vs DINKARRAI THAKARSEY THAKKAR

THIS appeal arises from order dated 20.4.1998 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat in Consumer Disputes Redressal Petition No. 263 of 1996, awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the complainant and against the opponent Surat Telecom District over and above the rebate of one month''s rent instead of 14 days'' rent.

IT was the case of the complainant that his telephone number 252167 [telephone in question] remained out of order for a period between 18.7.1996 and 5.8.1996 and since the complainant could not gratify Mr. Chaudhary, Majura Telephone Exchange Officer to the fullest extent of his demand in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-, his phone was not made to working condition till he filed complaint on 2.8.1996. He, therefore, prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and rebate of the rental charges. The learned Forum, after considering the rival pleadings of the parties, came to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to compensation not in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, but in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- for two reasons. Firstly, the complainant alleged the facts with regard to demand of illegal gratification by aforesaid Mr. Chaudhary and secondly because Mr. Chaudhary or for that matter no other officers of the opponent Telecom District filed any affidavit in support of the defence.

It was alleged by the complainant that he had his telephone in question at Udhna in Plot No. 195/2, Vasanwala Compound in the street of Mugat Dyeing. At that time his number was different. The said telephone was transferred to the applicant''s residence by following the procedure as required. On 7.4.1996 he got a letter from the opponent indicating that his telephone would be installed at his residence. He contacted Majure Telephone Exchange Officer Mr. Chaudhary who demanded illegal gratification realising that the complainant was in need of telephone on account of his social status and business interests. There was no other alternative for the complainant except to surrender to the illegal demand of Mr. Chaudhary. He, therefore, paid Rs. 3,000/- in cash to him. This did not satisfy the greed of Mr. Chaudhary who gave threats to the complainant saying that he was supreme authority in Majure Telephone Exchange and he would see that the complainant did not get the telephone installed at his residence. The complainant, therefore, met Mr. Chaudhary. At at that time his son Mr. Bhaveshkumar and one Mr. Nitin Babubhai were present. At that time Mr. Chaudhary demanded Rs. 2,000/- more for installation of the telephone. The complainant informed Mr. Chaudhary that he was not able to manage for the said amount and he had already paid Rs. 3,000/-. He also informed Mr. Chaudhary that superior officer would be informed for seeing that the telephone was installed at his residence. Once again Mr. Chaudhary gave threat to do whatever the complainant liked. He also informed the complainant that he would see that his telephone did not function or that he would get erroneous telephone bills. The complainant also alleged that Mr. Chaudhary had intimate relation with higher officers and therefore he was extracting money from the consumers. The complainant also came to know that Mr. Chaudhary was selling telephone cables and telephone copper wires. The complainant gave written application on 2.5.1996 to the opponent Telecom Department and thereafter the telephone was installed at the residence. It is in this background that the complainant has prayed for compensation as aforesaid.

WE have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the opponent Telecom District. In spite of notice, the ccomplainant has not appeared before this Commission. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant Telecom District that the cost of Rs. 300/- as per order dated 5.10.2001 passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 206/98 has been paid to the complainant. It would therefore appear that the complainant is in know of the pendency of the present appeal. Once again, a final communication was issued on 20.6.2002 for the next adjourned date. That communication has also been served. Under such circumstances, we have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Surat Telecom District and we are required to proceed with this order. The facts of the complainant''s case run into a very narrow compass if substance thereof is to be considered. The telephone in question remained out of order for a period of more than 14 days. To be precise, it went out of order on 18.7.1996 and it once again started working on 5.8.1996. Before that the complainant approached the learned Forum on 2.8.1996. It is not in dispute that the complainant was given benefit of rebate to the extent of rental for 14 days as per the rules. However, it is also not disputed that as per rules the complainant would be entitled to rebate in rental for a period of one month since the telephone in question remained out of order for more than 14 days. The complainant would therfore be entitled to rebate of rental for a period of one month and Mr. Sandip Shah, learned Advocate for the Surat Telecom District fairly concedes this aspect of the matter.

WITH regard to compensation, it is the allegation of the complainant that he gave illegal gratification to Mr. Chaudhary at the initial stage. It was in the sum of Rs. 3,000/-. He has further not placed that fact on record before the higher authorities or before any of the officers of the police department or any of the officers of the CBI. Thus, the complainant could not be said to be a bribe giver who was not willing to give bribe. A person who commits offence can hardly seek any relief of compensation since he has to be treated as party to the offence. A bribe giver is as much condemnable as a bribe taker under such circumstances. Besides, he would not be entitled to compensation on the allegation of he having paid illegal gratification to one of the officers of the opponent Telecom Department. That is not the legitimate loss which he is stated to have suffered. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 contemplates protection to a consumer who is honest and not to a consumer who is dishonest. Viewing the matter from any of the aforesaid angles, the complainant would not be entitled to compensation of any amount. We, therefore, propose to strike down the award of compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. We also propose to direct copy of this order being sent to the CBI at Gandhinagar. Following order is therefore passed : ORDER Impugned order dated 20.4.1998 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat in Consumer Disputes Redressal Petition No. 263 of 1996 is hereby set aside insofar as award of compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- is concerned. Rest of the order with regard to refund of rental for one month in place of refund of rental for 14 days is concerned, the same is maintained. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed, with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to CBI, Gandhinagar. Appeal partly allowed.