POST MASTER GENERAL vs Calcutta Telephones

THIS is an appeal by the Post Master General, West Bengal against Calcutta Telephones and a private respondent who was the complainant before the Forum.

THE fact of the case in short is that the complainant Sujit Kr. Mukherjee was a subscriber of Telephone No. 473-9395. THE complainant came to learn that on 18.6.1997 his telephone line has been disconnected permanently for non-payment of telephone bill for Cycle No. 3/97. He duly paid the said bill for Rs. 521/- in the Office of Calcutta G.P.O. on 27.3.1997 within due date. But due to negligence of Dealing Assistant of Calcutta G.P.O., the telephone number was fed in the Computer as 4763-9395 instead of 473-9395 resulting in this situation. THE complainant alleges that because of disconnection he could not contact important person in connection with his social and official work. Accordingly, he approached the Forum praying for restoration of telephone line and for compensation. The Calcutta Telephones by filing a written statement has stated that the mistake occurred at the end of Calcutta G.P.O.''s end, where they printed the telephone number as 4763-9395 and due to this the telephone number mis-matched. According to them, the complainant should have ascertained the position by dialing 151 line.

The Calcutta G.P.O. in their written statement stated that the facility of depositing Telephone Bill in Post Office is being done under instruction of the Government of India only to assist the Calcutta Telephones to provide better service to their consumer. It is claimed that the cheque for Rs. 521/- as deposited by the complainant in the Postal Department had been cleared in time.

THE Forum upon analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record held both the Calcutta Telephones and Calcutta G.P.O. guilty for this incident viz. disconnection of the telephone line of the complainant though payment had been duly made by the complainant with the Calcutta G.P.O. Accordingly, the Forum directed the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. The present appeal has been challenged by the Post Master General on the ground that they are not responsible for negligence and or deficiency in service in the matter of acceptance of payment from the complainant. In this connection, it would be relevant to note the circumstances under which the incident happened. The complainant deposited the cheque in Calcutta G.P.O. in time. The Dealing Clerk took the assistance of the Computer and the telephone number was wrongly noted as 4763-9395 i.e. 8 (eight) digit. The matter went up to the level of opposite party, Calcutta Telephones. The error was not then detected although it is well-known that there is no 8 (eight) digit number in Calcutta Telephones. Therefore, the initial error was committed by the Dealing Assistant of the Calcutta G.P.O. He was so careless that he did not note the correct telephone number in the papers. Likewise, the Calcutta Telephones did not make any proper enquiry knowing fully well that it had no 8 (eight) digit telephone number resulting in disconnection of the telephone line of the complainant. The Forum noticed that the Postal Authorities were acting as an Agent of the Calcutta Telephones and so it cannot avoid any responsibility in the matter. The lapse occurred at both ends, nobody having taken care to verify the actual state of affairs. It appears that the Forum made an elaborate analysis of the circumstances leading to the unfortunate situation. The Forum found that both the Departments of the Government of India are responsible for this sorry state of affairs. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Postal Department is not responsible for the disconnection of the telephone line of the complainant. It may be mentioned that the dispute between the two Departments cannot be adjudicated by this Commission. The fact remains that because of negligence and carelessness on the part of the Dealing Assistants of both the Departments, the complainant had to suffer mentally and socially. The complainant claims himself to be a social worker. He has stated that he could not make contact with the people in connection with the official work and social work as well. The Forum did not find any cogent material for assessing the amount of compensation but in its prudence awarded a presumptive compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. We find that the award of compensation is rational, just and proper and so we think no interference with the order is needed. In our view, the appeal is devoid of any merit and it is, therefore, liable to be dismissed which we hereby do. The appeal be dismissed on contest. Appeal dismissed.