GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM-/ vs CHANDRA SHEKHAR PARASHER

THE opposite party-appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 4.3.91 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 1170/90 and 17/90. THE District Forum directed the opposite party-appellant to adjust the amount of the rental for the periods 5.11.90 to 26.11.90 and 19.12.90 to 25.12.90 in respect of telephone No.74830 standing in the name of complainant-respondent No. 1. THE directions were given that in future bills after rebate be sent and to cause personal delivery of the bills to the subscribers including complaint-respondent within three days from the date of the issue of the bills, and also to pay Rs. 101/- as costs to the complainant.

THE complainant filed Complaint No. 1170/ 90 before the District Forum, Jaipur. It is dated 19.11.90. THE complainant is subscriber of telephone No. 74830. THE telephone was released in his favour in special quota for the freedom fighters. He filed complaint No. 1170/90 on the ground that his telephone remained out of order on March 22, 23 and 24, 1989, and so a sum of Rs. 50/- may be awarded as compensation for three days. It was alleged that he has been depositing the amount of the bills in time as and when received. THE prerequisite condition for deposit of the bill is that the bills are delivered in time. THE telephone again went out of order on 5.11.90 but despite complaints entered at No. 198 faults were not removed. THE complainant submitted on application on 9.11.90 but for rectification of the telephone. It is said that the officer did not talk properly with the complainant and told that there is a strike in the Department and nothing can be done. It was brought to his notice that the telephones of the offices of the Government are working but why there is carelessness in regard to the private telephones. His telephone remained out of order. THE curfew was clamped during those days and, therefore, the complainant could not contact anybody and his work came to stand still. It was stated by him that he was entitled to Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. It was prayed that compensation @ Rs. 1,000/- per day from 5.11.90 to 19.11.90 may be awarded during which the telephone remained out of order and also for award of Rs. 100/- as compensation per day. It was also prayed that no rental should be recovered for the days when the telephone remains out of order. A direction may be issued that the telephone should not be disconnected of those subscribers who do not receive the bills in time. THE subject matter of other Complaint No. 17/91 is the telephone which remained closed from 5.11.90 and out of order, and it was rectified on 26.11.90 so compensation from 5.11.90 to 26.11.90 may be awarded as the opposite party-appellant did not render proper service during that period. THE telephone again went out of order from 19.12.90. A complaint was lodged on 24.12.90. Despite that the telephone was not rectified until 27.12.90. Compensation was claimed in this complaint with respect to the above period i.e. during those days when the telephone did not work. The opposite party-appellant submitted a version of the case on 25.1.91 stoutly opposing the complaint. It was submitted that from 5.11.90 to 22.11.90 there was tool down strike of All India Telecom employees and complaints could not be registered. The complaint was received on 24.11.90 at 12 O''clock. Fault was removed on 26.11.90 at 17 hours. It was denied that the complaint was lodged on 19.12.90. The complaint was lodged on 24.12.90 at 16 hours. At that time there was cable fault which was removed on 25.12.90 at 12.30. It was admitted that during the curfew period the employees had no curfew pass with them and, therefore, some faults were not removed. Claim for compensation was denied. It was submitted that if the telephone had remained out of order for 15 days, then rebate is given on rent. It was submitted that the opposite party renders proper service to the subscribers.

In support of the complaint the complainant submitted his affidavit dated 19.11.90. On behalf of the opposite party, affidavit of Shri Sanjay Kumar OIC was submitted to support the defence taken in the version of the case. The District Forum while deciding Complaint No. 1170/90 ordered the opposite party-appellant to adjust the amount of rental for the periods of 5.11.90 to 26.11.90 and l9.12.90 to 25.12.90 in respect of the complainant''s telephone No. 74830. Other directions have been reproduced hereinabove. The opposite party-appellant has filed this appeal being dissatisfied with the order.

THE complainant-respondent submitted a reply to the appeal. We heard Mr. U.D. Sharma learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Chandra Shekhar Parashar, complainant-respondent in-person and have carefully scrutinised the order under appeal in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the parties keeping in view the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the reply thereto. Two question crop up for our consideration in this appeal. 1. Whether there was negligence on the part of the opposite party-appellant when the complainant-respondent''s telephone did not function on account of the strike of the employee of the Telecom Department during the period 5.11.90 to 26.11.90; 2. Was the District Forum right and justified in granting the reliefs in the manner in which it did?

Re. Question No. 1: It has been mentioned by the District Forum in the impugned order that there was strike of the employees of the Telecom Deptt. and on account of the strike rectification of the fault of the complainant''s telephone was beyond the control of the appellant and it cannot be termed as deficiency in service, and for that matter no negligence can be attributed to the appellant. So as to warrant any relief. The matter need not detain us long. In Consumer Unity and Society, Calcutta v. Bank of Baroda, I (1992) CPJ 18 (NC), the National Commission had occasion to consider deficiency in banking service on account of illegal strike of the employees of the Bank as a result of which there was inability of the Bank to provide service to its customers. It was held therein that where the suspension of banking operations was the direct consequence of an illegal strike involving unlawful obstruction by the striking workmen of ingress into and, egress from the Bank''s offices by the officers and willing members of staff, it cannot be said that the inconvenience, loss or injury which was undoubtedly caused to the large number of constituents of the bank was a result of negligence on the part of the Bank. As the fault could not be rectified on account of the strike of the employees of the Telecom Deptt. the service rendered by the opposite party-appellant cannot be said to suffer from deficiency as envisaged by Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Act. When the facts or factors were such which were beyond the control of the appellant, it cannot be said that it was on account of the negligence of the part of the opposite party-appellant that inconvenience was caused to the complainant. The answer to question No. 1 formulated by us here in above is in favour of the opposite party appellant and against the complainant-respondent.

THE District Forum has held that the telephone of the complainant remained out of order from 19.12.90 to 25.12.90 and so a direction was given to opposite party-appellant to adjust the amount in future bills. Mr. U.D. Sharma submitted that in para 4 of the complaint dated 4.9.91 (Complaint Case No. 17/91) the complainant himself stated that his telephone went out of order for which he made a complaint on 24.12.90 and the fault was rectified on 25.12.90 when the complaint itself was made on 24.12.90 the opposite party is right in submitting that it cannot have any grievance for the period prior to 24.12.90. THErefore, the refund of the rental for the period 17.12.190 to 25.12.90 was not proper. THE crucial question in this regard is whether the District Forum could give the directions to the opposite party-appellant to adjust the amount of the rental for the period 5.11.90 to 26.11.90 and 19.12.90 to 25.12.90 in future bills by way of rebate. It is settled beyond doubt that such a relief could not be granted by the District Forum, Jaipur, for a Redressal Forum established under the Act can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated in Sec. 14(1) of the Act. Such a relief is not contemplated by Sec. 14(1) of the Act. Reference in this connection may be made to 1991 (1) CPR 361 and 1991 (1) CPR 614. It was submitted that the District Forum was not right in directing the opposite party-appellant to cause personal delivery of the bills to the subscribers. Mr. Sharma urged that in none of the said complaints the complainant has made any specific and definite complaint about the delay/non-receipt of any bill by him for any particular month and whatever has been stated therein is quite vague or of general nature only and as such the District Forum ought to have ignored the said general allegations. Apart from that it was pressed that no material has been placed about the delay/non-delivery of the bills to other subscribers. We do not want to make a probe into the matter and rest contented by observing that the opposite party-appellant should send bills to the subscribers by post according to the departmental rules on specified dates as indicated in the telephone directory. The District Forum should not have directed that the opposite party-appellant should cause personal delivery of the bills to the subscribers including the complainant-respondent within three days from the date of the issue of the bills. The bills are to be sent by post. Question No.2 is answered accordingly. As the complainant is not entitled to any relief, order for award of costs is not justified and it has also to be quashed. No other point survives for our consideration in this appeal. The appeal is allowed and the order dated 4.3.91 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur is set aside. The direction regarding the delivery of the bills to the subscribers shall stand modified as stated above.

THE appeal is all owed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.