Lala Samachar Newspaper vs General Manager Telecom Department Ludhiana

THIS appeal is directed against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigrah, dated the 23rd November, 1993 directing the complainant to seek his relief from the competent Civil Court or any other independent proceedings as may be open to him in law.

THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, Lala Samachar Newspaper, is a registered newspaper with the Registrar of the Newspapers for India, Government of India, New Delhi. The local office of the Newspaper is in the premises of HE -93, Jamalpur Colony, Ludhiana. The case of the complainant, as disclosed in the complaint, was that the opposite party No 4, Anoop Pratap (son of the complainant) filed a declaration before the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, in respect of the newspaper, Lala Samachar, without the authority letter from the complainant. The complainant had applied some years back for the telephone connection with the opposite party No. 1 through his son, opposite party No. 4, in the name of Newspaper Lala Samachar. The application was signed by the opposite party No. 4. The opposite party No. 1 had not installed the telephone applied for in the premises No. HE -93, Jamalpur Colony, Ludhiana, but with common intention and conspiracy with opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 provided the telephone connection under No. 70909 in the name of Lala Samachar Newspaper at another premises. The opposite party No. 3 by forging and preparing false documents got telephone installed at some other premises and the telephone is being misused by him. The misuse of the telephone is to harm the complainant and wherein the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 have no legal right to use this telephone. In these premises, the complainant claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs from the opposite party for misusing the telephone. The complaint was contested on behalf of the opposite parties. So far as the respondent No. 4 was concerned he stated that he applied for the installation of the telephone connection and it was firstly installed at HE 93, Jamalpur Colony, Ludhiana, and thereafter it was shifted to 5294, Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana on 27th November, 1991 at his request. The claim of the complainant was repudiated as it was false and frivolous. The case disclosed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, i.e., the Telephone Department was that the telephone connection was applied by Mr. Anup Pratap of Lala Samachar Newspaper in the capacity of Editor/Proprietor and the same was installed on 25th January, 1990 at Titu House, HE -93, Jamalpur Colony, Ludhiana, at the address mentioned in the application form while applying. This telephone No. 70909 was shifted to 5249, Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana on 27th November, 1991 on the request made by the suscriber i.e. Mr. Anup Pratap Bhasin and the telephone Number was changed to 662868. The complainant Mr. M.S. Rana, who is the father of Anup Pratap, had no concern with the telephone as neither he had signed any documents at the time of applying for telephone connection nor had done any correspondence with the Department. The telephone bills all along have been paid by respondent No. 4 and not by the complainant. It was also stated that another complaint had also been filed by the complainant which was pending before the District Forum.

AFTER considering the relevant contentions of the parties, the State Commission returned the finding that it was not possible to grant any relief to the complainant in this Forum and the complainant was advised to seek his relief from the Civil Court or any other independent proceedings as may be open to him in law.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the State Commission the complainant has filed this appeal which is under disposal. We have heard the complainant. It was contended by him that the respondent No. 4, Anoop Pratap, had no authority to act on behalf of the Newspaper Lala Samachar and he had submitted the paper for declaration before the District Magistrate, Ludhiana without the authority from the appellant and he had forged and fabricated false documents in order to get the telephone connection. Anoop Pratap had no authority to act on behalf of the Newspaper Lala Samachar.

WE have considered the contention raised by the appellant and perused the record. In our opinion, the State Commission was right in dismissing the complaint of appellant and directing him to seek his relief from the Civil Court or any other independent proceedings as may be available to him. The case as set up by the complainant in the complaint needs elaborate inquiry as to whether the respondent No. 4, who acted on behalf of the Lala Samachar Newspaper, had forged and fabricated false documents in order to procure a telephone connection. Such type of allegations can be investigated and gone into only in a regular civil suit. We see no legal infirmity in the Order of the State Commission and it calls for no interference. We confirm the Order of the State Commission. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.