MANDOVI PELLETS LTD. vs S.D.O.T. MARGAO

THE complainant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of iron-ores pellets in the domestic as as well as export market. THE complainant is having a factory at Shiroda with several telephone connections, namely, (1) 777366, (2) 777367, (3) 777368, (4) 777369, (5) 777371, (6) 777372, (7) 777374, (8) 777375 and (9) 777255 for the purpose of operation of its business.

THE connections are going out of order time and again, putting the complainant to great hardship, inconvenience and losses. Several complaints were made and repeated reminders had yielded no results. THErefore, by Notice dated 8.9.1995, the complainant tried to impress upon the opposite parties to mend their attitude and give to the complainant proper and prompt service. Even this Notice did not succeed and the telephone connections continued to go out of order systematically at regular intervals. Hence, this complaint. THE complainant requires the telephones for various reasons, namely failure of electricity, failure of equipments in which case experts/engineers have to be procured from Ponda or Margao by a telephone call, in case of emergency, placing of orders and contacting suppliers, product sales marketing etc; for Indian customers and Foreign export customers and for administrative work. On account of failure of the telephone services, the complainant''s factory gets paralysed and the complainant cannot contact in time its customers, thus loosing business. As a result, the complainant suffers substantial losses which, on average, run into lakhs of rupees per month. THE complainant, therefore, prayed that the opposite parties be directed to give regular and prompt 24 hrs. service, by removing the defects. A further prayer was made directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the loss and inconvenience caused to it due to their negligence in giving proper service. An additional prayer was added seeking a direction to the opposite parties to place their serviceman or linesman at their disposal to look after the connections permanently on such terms as this Commission deems fit. In reply, the opposite parties pleaded that no complaint was lodged at any time as required by the Department and, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. It was alleged that the telephones were installed not within the area of Loutolim Telephone Exchange and even though the premises of the complainant falls in Ponda SDCA, the telephone connections were wrongly given from Margao SDCA. The factory is situated in a remote place where local cable laying from Loutolim Exchange was not possible due to the bridge. Inspite of that the Department went out of its way to help the complainant only to give some service but not fault free service. It was also stated that it was wrong on their part to give connections to the complainant and instead of being thankful to the Department, the complainant has filed a case against them. Their further pleadings is that the complainant has claimed that they were paying Rs. 50,000/- as bi-monthly bill which by itself shows that they are effectively availing of telephone services and, therefore, this complaint is just build up to claim compensation. Besides, the complainant has not followed the standard procedure of reporting fault to 198 or JTO or SDE or DE. Instead they went on sending telegrams to the Administrative Office which resulted in delaying to attend to faults and to claim compensation. It was also their plea that smooth working of telephones was not possible due to heavy winds, heavy electrical induction, rains, etc. Further, the plant down time analysis of the factory shows that there was a failure of plant due to various factors. Thus, it was suggested, when the complainant cannot maintain his equipment fit within the four walls of the factory, they could not expect uninterrupted service knowing well that the complainant''s factory is situated in a remote place and several factors are responsible to rule out a 24 hours guaranteed service.

On the day of the hearing Mr. V. Mauzekar, learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. U.K. Tari, learned Counsel for the opposite parties, argued at length.

WE have gone through the records and considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. Admittedly, this complaint was filed on account of alleged deficiency in service consequent upon the fact that, out of nine telephone connections given by the opposite parties to the complainant''s factory, most of them were being out of order time and again thus causing great hardship and inconvenience in the smooth running of their business. In support of its averments, the complainant have relied on a number of letters and telegrams as well as on a legal Notice complaining about the failure of the instruments addressed to the opposite parties which, according to the complainant, did not even merit a single reply nor the frantic appeals were promptly attended so as to ensure the normal functioning of its factory without sommersaults and material loss. There is also further evidence brought by the complainant from other independent sources, namely, letter from Vikram Ispat, dated 20th September, 1995, Mitsubishi Corporation, dated 1.3.1996, and letter from M/s. Utility Engineers, dated 22.11.1997, which all speak to the fact that the complainant''s telephones were not being available to them in connection with their business dealings, thus suggesting potential losses to the complainant. In addition the document placed on record by the complainant with regard to its plant down time analysis containing details as to the date, time as well as the reason for stoppage of the plant goes also to indicate up to what extent the need of telephone connections was actually important for such type of industrial units, more particularly, for the purpose of contacting experts outside the factory which might be required at any time to rectify breakdowns in its normal functioning. None of this documentary evidence was contested by the opposite parties as far as its genuineness is concerned although they had made a feeble attempt to belittle its impact and sought to draw their own conclusions so as to negativate its real value. In their defence, however, the opposite parties have contended firstly that at no time the complainant have filed complaints before the designated officers to entertain such complaints nor did the complainant followed the prescribed standard procedure to report the faulty functioning of the telephones. It is their case that complaints regarding telephones going out of order should not have been registered with the General Manager or any higher Authority but instead with 198, SDE and/or DE. However, we find that inconsistently with this merely technical approach, the evidence on record indicates that several of the written complaints relied by the complainant were actually lodged with the SDE of the Telecom Department who, admittedly, is the Competent Authority to receive and entertain such type of complaints. In this regard, the letter dated 18.9.1995 and the telegrams dated 4.10.1995, 16.10.1995, 20.11.1995 and 9.11.1995 which all went unattended are a clear pointer in support of the complainant''s claim about the opposite parties negligence and utter carelessness towards its grievances. Besides, the Notice dated 8.9.1995 addressed by the complainant and purportedly reporting to the Department about the defective functioning of the telephones of its factory and the consequent loss of revenue which this was bound to carry to the same Department with a request to rectify the mistakes also seems to have not impressed the SDOT Margao as it happened in respect of the previous letters and telegrams which were not also replied nor acted upon. Even the opposite parties'' further contention that nowhere in its several complaints, the complainant has specifcally mentioned the date and the time of the so called breakdowns of the telephones is shown to have grossly overlooked the fact of patent reference to such details having been made by the complainant in its telegrams dated 4.10.1995, 12.10.1995, 9.11.1995, 12.11.1995 and 8.12.1995.

IT thus follows that in view of the abundant and substantially uncontested material relied by the complainant to negativate this plea, the arguments advanced by the opposite parties on this point fall flat and are to be discarded. The second defence taken by the opposite parties that, on account of the remote location of the complainant''s factory and the technical mistake in giving them telephone connections, the complainant could not expect "continuous" and "fault free service" is only to be recorded just to be rejected. We are really at loss to appreciate this type of unprofessional approach on the part of a Governmental Undertaking responsible for the supply and maintenance of such an important public service which amounts to a clear confession of its technical unpreparedness and administrative competence. Indeed, if according to their own say, the premises where these telephones are installed were not within the area of Loutolim Exchange and even though the said premises were located within the area of Ponda SDCA, the said connections were wrongly given from Margao SDCA, this is entirely the fault or deficiency in service of the Department itself and for that matter they are certainly answerable to the complainant who has paid for the services to be rendered regularly and efficiently. Further, whether the factory being or not situated in a remote area where the local cables laying from Loutolim Exchange were not possible due to the bridge which means that, for all practical purposes, the same factory was situated in a non-feasible area is also one more aspect directly dealing with technical expertise on the part of the Department and for which the complainant is not at all concerned. Therefore, no blame can be attributed to the said complainant which was supplied with telephone connections that are not giving proper service and if anybody has faulted in this service it is the Department alone which has knowingly installed the connections in the irregular and defective manner as they did. Hence in our opinion, the Department candid admission that it was wrong on their part to give such connections to the complainant truly clinches the whole issue and therefore, the opposite parties further lament that instead of being thankful to them the complainant has unduly filed a case against them for faulty services has no meaning and becomes absolutely irrelevant. Indeed, we fail to understand such outburst which is not going to take the Department anywhere. If the services were actually allowed to the complainant on payment of the required fees it was the bounden duty of the Department to ensure efficiency and quality standards in its performance. Obviously all the telephone subscribers are entitled to expect that they will be provided smooth and uninterrupted services as long as they meet their obligations with regard to the prompt payment of bills relating to the rental and call charges. That much has been affirmed by the National Commission in the case of District Manager v. Lalit Kumar Bajila, reported in I (1992) CPJ 189 (NC). In the instant case we are satisfied that the services rendered by the opposite parties have been grossly inadequate, irregular and erratic with frequent breakdowns of the connections which have caused the telephones going time and again out of order. This by itself amounts to a deficiency in service which entitles the complainant, as a bona fides subscriber, to claim compensation not only for the hardship and inconvenience which they had to bear but also on account of losses suffered in their business. As such, the complainant is fully justified in praying for a specific direction to the opposite parties to give them regular and prompt uninterrupted services in respect of all the telephones made available to them by the Department and a categorical assurance that whenever defects arise they would be immediately attended and rectified. So far the actual loss allegedly claimed in the petition with regard to the business of the factory, it is true that an effort was made to place on record some material to enable us to quantify such reasonable compensation available to the complainant. We are however of the opinion that this material is not conclusive enough not only to substantiate the amount sought for towards damages but also to help us to safely arrive at any other definite figure under this head. We are, however, firm in our view that the complainant deserves at least some relief on this aspect bearing in mind both the material loss which the complainant is free to get more appropriately adjudicated in any other competent Forum, if he is so advised, as well as the manifest inconvenience and hardship which the ostensibly deficient service rendered by the opposite parties has caused to the complainant. We, therefore, hold that taking into consideration all these relevant factors an amount of Rs. 10,000/- appears to be a fair and balanced amount of compensation which is due to the complainant in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. In this view of the matter, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are hereby directed to ensure uninterrupted regular service to the complainant in respect of all its telephone connections installed in the Shiroda factory. They are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards loss, hardship and inconvenience suffered by them on account of deficiency in service. This amount should be paid within 30 days from the date of taking notice of this order or on receipt of this order, whichever is earlier, failure which the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum till its realisation. The opposite parties shall also to pay costs which we quantify at Rs. 1,000/-. Order accordingly. Complaint partly allowed.