KUSUM PANDEY vs Union of India

THIS complaint has been filed by Smt. Kusum Pandey, wife of late Dr. S.C. Pandey, Sudhanshu Pandey, Dr. Archana Misra, Smt. Subha Dwivedi and Smt. Divya Chaturvedi. Briefly stated the allegations contained in the complaint are as follows.

THE complainant No. 1 Smt. Kusum Pandey, is the mother of complainant Nos. 2 to 5 and they are surviving legal heirs of late Dr. S.C. Pandey who died on 18.9.1996 at Ashiana Colony, Lucknow. Husband of complainant No. 1 S.C. Pandey was a retired Chief Medical Superintendent and a Government pensioner drawing total pension of Rs. 5,600/- per month. He along with complainant No. 1 had been living in Ashiana Colony, Lucknow and the rest members of the family were living separately at their respective place of posting. After his retirement the husband of the complainant No. 1 was doing his professional work and was a man of status. He was subscriber and user of telephone service. Being a heart patient and all his children being out of town, S.C. Pandey, husband of the complainant No. 1 got a telephone installed at his house at K-932, Ashiana Colony, Lucknow on 1st June, 1993. He was prompt in regularly paying the telephone bills and there was no outstanding payment against the telephone bills. On 10.9.1993 his telephone No. 257062 went out of order. A complaint was made to Transport Nagar Telephone Exchange on the same day but the fault was not rectified. A letter was sent to S.D.O. Telephone on 12.9.1993 and again on 23.9.1993 requesting the SDO (Telephones), Alambagh to attend the complaint but to no effect. Further a letter dated 28.9.1993 to the SDO Telephones, Alambagh was written requesting for immediate steps but telephone was put to order only on 23.10.1993. THE telephone again became dead on 11.11.1993 and a complaint was made to the concerned Telephone Exchange on the same day. A letter was written to the Telephone Department on 17.11.1993 by Dr. S.C. Pandey, husband of the complainant No. 1 and when the telephone was not corrected, a complaint was lodged again on 24.11.1993 to the D.G.M. (Telephones). In the complaint it was made clear that the lineman concerned was knowingly committing the mischief by demanding Rs. 100/-. Another letter dated 29.11.1993 was sent to DGM (Telephones) and after making several efforts the telephone was set right. THE Department of Telecommunication had to give rebate for the period 22.2.1993 to 15.10.1993 because of the fact that the telephone in question was not in working order during that period. Again on 9.7.1994 the telephone of the petitioner went out of order and a complaint was made by Dr. Pandey to the Telephone Exchange. Letters were also sent on 10.7.1994 and 12.7.1994 but the telephone was not corrected. In his letters the husband of the complainant No. 1 had been insisting that he was a heart patient and was living alone with his wife and was in dire need of medical assistance and contact with his sons who are posted outside the State. No heed was paid on these letters. Letters were again written to the D.G.M. Telephones, on 21.7.1994, 30.7.1994 and 5.8.1994. The telephone again went out of order on 9.1.1996 and on the same day a complaint was lodged. When the telephone was not set to order the D.G.M. (Telephones) was again approached by letters dated 17.1.1996, 25.1.1996 and several complaints were made with the Telephone Exchange. After some time the telephone gave proper services. However, in the last week of May, 1996 the telephone again developed defects which were not removed for a considerable period. Letters were written on 6.6.1996, 12.6.1996, 30.6.1996, 3.7.1996, 14.7.1996, 1.8.1996, 13.8.1996 in addition to the complaint lodged with the Telephone Exchange but to no avail and the defects in the telephone were not removed till 15.8.1996 but again after a week from 24.8.1996 the said telephone became dead. Complaint was lodged by Dr. Pandey with the Transport Nagar Telephone Exchange and complaints were also made to D.G.M. (Telephones) on 26.8.1996, 29.8.1996 but to no effect. The husband of the complainant No. 1 was regularly approaching and writing to different offices of the Telephone Department for having smooth working of his telephone as a result of which he was under constant mental stress. Telephone Department employees were annoyed with Dr. Pandey on not paying the money and the telephone was kept deliberately defective. He even approached the Minister for Telecommunication by making a complaint about the working of his telephone but the said telephone was not set right. Again letters were sent to D.G.M. Telephone and other Authorities of the Telecommunication Department on 5.9.1996, 11.9.1996, 14.9.1996 and 17.9.1996 but the telephone was lying dead. The opposite parties did not act and failed to discharge their duties in providing telephone service to Dr. S.C. Pandey from June, 1996 till his death on 18.9.1996. The husband of the complainant No. 1 died without medical aid due to lack of communication on telephone which was badly needed.

The inefficiency and carelessness of the Telephone Department towards the consumers of locality of Ashiana, Eldico and Bangla Bazar was published in daily newspaper ''Dainik Jagran'' on 28.9.199, and the direct effect of non-rectification of the fault in the telephone of Dr. Pandey caused fast deterioration in his health on 18.9.1996 and even a doctor could not be called. On the death of Dr. Pandey the complainant Nos. 2 to 5 could not be informed in time due to defective telephone service. Through this complaint claim has, therefore, been lodged for an amount of Rs. 14,60,000/- which includes loss of pension of Rs. 7,20,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum, private practice for Rs. 2,40,000/- for 20 years and compensation for shock grief, loss of companionship/loss of social status for Rs. 5,00,000/-.

THE opposite parties filed their written statement and denied the allegations of the complaint. It was stated that Dr. S.C. Pandey was consumer of telephone No. 257062 and the department had no information about his successors. No information about the transfer of telephone in the name of successors has been given to the department and, therefore, all the complainants are not the consumers. It is difficult to know as to who is the present consumer of the telephone and, therefore, no consumer dispute exists between the complainants and the opposite parties. THE Telephone Department has nothing to do with the status of the complainant and all the consumers are dealt with at par. THE telephone services are provided as per Rule 413 of the Telephone Rules and no carelessness or discrimination was made in providing telephone services to the husband of the complainant No. 1. It was further stated that instead of correspondence to be done in regard to the removal of defects in telephone the right method is to dial 198 so that it could be technically found as to what was the nature of fault so that the fault could be removed. THE husband of the complainant No. 1 had not made any complaint on the concerned No. 198 and whenever the complaint was made on this number the defect was removed. THE main complaint of the telephone of Dr. Pandey related to the cable fault and the reason for this was that in the Transport Nagar Telephone Exchange new cable line was laid and serious defects cropped up and unfortunately the telephone of Dr. Pandey was hit by the cable fault. This could have happened because of technical reasons which takes time in removing the defects. THE department cannot take guarantee of continuous service of telephone in view of technical fault. THErefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and whatever the delays occurred in removing the defects of the telephone was because of technical reasons which were beyond the control and for such technical defects the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation. Along with the written statement a copy of the fault card of the telephone has also been annexed. Complainant No. 1 Smt. Kusum Pandey filed her affidavit on 11.3.1999 reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. In the said affidavit it was stated that complainant Nos. 1 to 5 were clearly beneficiary of the service availed by late Dr. S.C. Pandey as is provided under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Since Dr. Pandey was a heart patient, therefore, the telephone service was indispensable for him in order to have prompt medical attendance. In the affidavit it was also stated that telephone No. 198 provided by the opposite parties for registering complaint seldom responds and, therefore, complaints had to be made by delivering letters to various Authorities. Alongwith the affidavit number of documents including receipt of payment of telephone bills and various letters given to various officers of the Telephone Department have been enclosed.

THE opposite parties through affidavit of Sangam Ji Pandey stated that the telephone in question was in the name of Dr. S.C. Pandey and the complainants are not the beneficiaries. THE telephone connection was not given on medical ground and the connection was an ordinary one. In the said affidavit the allegations made in the written statement were reiterated. We have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties and the learned Counsel for the complainants had argued that for rectification of the defects in telephone as many as 40 complaints were lodged but defects were not removed. Dr. S.C. Pandey, husband of the complainant No. 1 was living alone with his wife and since he was a heart patient he died without any medical care. It was also argued that payment of bills received from Telephone Department were being made promptly by the complainant No. 1''s husband. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the proper procedure for seeking removal of defects in the telephone service was to dial No. 198 and not to make written complaints to various Authorities. It was also argued that the Transport Nagar Exchange had developed cable fault and line fault from time to time and it became beyond the control of the department to rectify the defects promptly. We are not in agreement with the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that for removal of defects only recourse is to dial No. 198. A perusal of the written statement along with affidavit filed by opposite parties would reveal that not only large number of telephone complaints were made to various Authorities regarding removal of the defects in the telephone but also recourse was taken to dial 198 and the department has admitted that whenever this remedy was adopted by the complainant, the defect of telephone was removed sooner or later. We agree with the contention of the complainants that dialing of No. 198 is not the only alternative for removing the defects of the phone. If it has been so the opposite parties could not have taken action on a number of letters written by the husband of the complainant No. 1 to the opposite parties. The department has not refuted the allegation of the complainants that there were no outstanding dues against Dr. Pandey and prompt payment of bills was being made and the department was charging for telephone charges but at the same time it had pleaded that for technical defects it is not responsible for any compensation. This plea is not acceptable because the consideration was being charged regularly which was paid and at the same time services were found to be defective. Once a telephone has been energized it is the responsibility of the department to maintain it in proper working condition and any failure on this ground will be the responsibility of the opposite parties. It is not the concern of the complainants that there are some technical defects with the Exchange or in the line. Complainants need the telephone for proper service and opposite parties failed to render that service.

NOW when we examine the documents of the record we find that the opposite parties themselves have admitted that as per record the concerned telephone connection was faulty either because of cable pair fault or because of line fault. The chart annexed by the opposite parties along with the written statement and the affidavit reveals that there were defects in concerned telephone from 9.7.1994 to 13.8.1994, 18.9.1995 to 20.9.1995, 7.12.1995 to 16.12.1995, 29.1.1996 to 2.2.1996, 7.2.1996 to 26.2.1996, 13.3.1996 to 27.3.1996, 19.7.1996 to 24.7.1996, 26.7.1996 to 6.8.1996, 17.8.1996 to 19.8.1996, 29.8.1996 to 8.9.1996. Even if we do not consider any other document placed on record, this single document produced by the opposite parties themselves clearly proves that the telephone in question was disrupted as many as twenty times.

A perusal of the documents filed along with the affidavit of complainant No. 1 reveals that payment of telephone bills was made promptly (Annexures 1 to 9 of the affidavit). Copies of the letters addressed to various Authorities by the husband of the complainant No. 1 speak of the fact that Dr. S.C. Pandey had been requesting for removal of defects of his phone from time to time (Annexures 10 to 16 and Annexures 18 to 41). Annexure 17 of the affidavit is a letter from the Telephone Department to the husband of the complainant No. 1 under which rental rebate was given from 22.9.1993 to 15.10.1993. This strengthens the case of the complainants that the department was at fault in providing proper service to the complainants. These documents clearly reveal the position of the telephone subscriber who was compelled to complain to the opposite parties not only once or twice but on several occasions for removing the defects in his telephone and most of the time the telephone remained dead causing inconvenience, mental tension and loss to the husband of the complainant No. 1 which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Now coming to the determination of quantum of loss caused by the opposite parties, it may be stated that the mere fact that the constant defect in the telephone resulted into loss of Rs. 14,60,000/- as claimed by the complainants appears to be very high. The death of the husband of the complainant No. 1 cannot be attributed to the defects occurred from time to time in the telephone. No doubt inconvenience and harassment was caused to him but the defects in the telephone cannot be said to be the reason of the death of Dr. S.C. Pandey. In the circumstances of the case a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- shall be sufficient to be awarded to the complainants. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be decreed partly. ORDER The complaint is partly decreed. It is hereby directed that the opposite parties shall pay to the complainants an amount of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. For failure to comply this order in time the opposite parties shall also be liable to pay interest on the above amount @ 12% per annum till the date of payment. The complainants are also entitled to Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation payment of which shall be made by the opposite parties within same period of six weeks. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Complaint partly allowed with costs.