UNION OF INDIA vs B.S.SIDHU

FACTS leading to this appeal are that the present respondent, Dr. B.S. Sidhu, who was complainant before the State Commission, Haryana, is publishing a daily newspaper under the name and style ''Hak Parast'' from Kaithal, District Kurukshetra. He was availing the facilities of United News of India (for short U.N.I.) for receiving fresh news daily and for that purpose had installed a teleprinter machine on due payment to them and to the Post and Telegraph Department. According to the relevant agreement with the said Department it was the latter''s duty to keep the teleprinter circuit and its line in running condition from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.

THE trouble between the parties is alleged to have originated on 20th July, 1989 when a news item was published in newspaper Hak Parast highlighting a procession taken out by the Telephone Consumers of Kaithal against the Sub Divisional Officer and Junior Engineer of the place of the said Department wherein slogans against corruption in the Department were raised along with demands to maintain telephone services in proper condition. It was further the case of the complainant that on the following day the telephone lines and the teleprinter machine Telecommunication lines were intentionally disconnected by the officials aforementioned. (In fact according to the reply filed by the Opposite Party before the State Commission, the systems on which teleprinter machine was working were disturbed/faulty at 16.00 hrs. on that very date i.e. 20th July, 1989 and line is alleged to have been rectified at 19.00 hrs. on that day). A complaint was lodged immediately regarding the defect. When the Manager of the aforementioned newspaper approached the officers of the Telephone Exchange, he was rebuked and told that the defects in the line would continue till they (i.e. complainant and his employees) learnt a lesson for publishing defamatory news against the Department''s Officials at Kaithal. Thereafter the teleprinter lines were allegedly frequently disconnected intentionally by the said officials. The complainant made various oral as well as written complaints to the S.D.O. (Telephones) Kaithal but to no avail. Ultimately the complainant was left with no alternative, but to discontinue the teleprinter connection in January, 1990.

IT is further the case of the complainant that due to the fault in the Teleprinter lines he suffered financial loss amounting to Rs. 82,928/- the details of which have been given by him as follows:

IN addition to the above amount, the complainant claimed Rs. 3 lacs as damages on the ground that due to the fault in the teleprinters lines, he could not receive fresh news from U.N.I, and thus failed to give fresh news in his newspaper. He had to send his employees to various places in Chandigarh etc. to collect the news. Due to late collection of news, the press workers had to work over-time for which he had to pay over-time wages. The complainant had appeared in the witness box before the State Commission and in his deposition he had stated that he had suffered mentally, socially and economically due to the fault of the employees of the Telecommunication Department. According to him, there was fall in the circulation of his newspaper. The opposite party before the State Commission (no appellants) controverted the complainant''s allegations. They took the preliminary objections: one was that under the Indian Telegraph Act, the complainant was bound to ask for arbitration (vide Sec. 7-B of that Act) for settlement of the dispute between the parties, the other one was that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint because the application for providing the teleprinter circuit and the contract was between the Posts and Telegraphs Department and U.N.I, and the application for the closure of the circuit was also made by U.N.I.

ON merits it was pleaded by the Department that on the demand of U.N.I. a teleprinter circuit between Chandigarh and Kaithal was provided, one end of which was installed at the premises of U.N.I, and the other end in the office of the Editor-in-Chief of the Daily "Hak Parast'' at Kaithal. The allegation of international disconnection of deliberate faulting of the circuit was denied.

THE State Commission repelled both the preliminary objections raised by the Department. On merits it was held that the complainant had failed to establish that the disruption of the teleprinter service was malicious or international. However, it was held that the teleprinter services which he enjoyed as a beneficiary, suffered from serious deficiencies and faults in the efficient performance thereof. As a result, it was held that the complainant was entitled to the return of the charges paid for the deficient service and those included item Nos. (i) to (iv) (reproduced in para 4 of this Order) totalling Rs. 54,928/-. About item Nos. (v) and (vi) it was held that there was no evidence to support them. The claim for damages amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs was also disallowed on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the circulation of the newspaper of the complainant had decreased or the complainant had suffered any loss. Consequently the Department was ordered to refund to the complainant Rs. 54,928/-within a period of two months. Feeling not satisfied with the Order of the State Commission, the Union of India through the concerned department and officers has filed this appeal.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant pressed the preliminary objections before us. As noticed earlier the first objection rested upon Sec. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. It was argued that the complainant ought to have applied for arbitration for settlement of the dispute. This objection has been taken by the Telecom Department in various cases coming before us at the appellate and re-visional stage and it has been repeatedly held by this Commission that the consumer of telecommunications services are entitled to seek relief from the Consumers Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 inspite of the provision contained in Sec. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Reference can also be made to District Manager, Telephones v. Dr. Tarun Bharthuar and Anmy 1991 (1) CPR 171 = 1 (1992) CPJ p.47.

APPELLANT ''s Counsel then pressed the second preliminary objection by which the locus standi of the complainant to file the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been challenged. After giving detailed reasons, the State Commission has over-ruled that preliminary objection as according to them the complainant was a beneficiary, falling within the definition of a "consumer" as he availed the services (i.e. teleprinter services) with the approval of the original hirer (i.e. U.NX). We need not repeat the reasons adopted by the State Commission while repelling this preliminary objection as we fully agree with them. The learned Counsel for the appellant had hardly any points to urge upon the merits of the case. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, argued that the State Commission fell in error in holding that the disruption of the teleprinter service was not malicious or intentional. According to him no defect occurred in the teleprinter circuit till 20th July, 1989, on which date the offending news item was published in the ''Daily Hak Parast'' and thereafter there were frequent disruptions in the circuit. He argued that malice and intention on the part of the officers of the Telecommunication Department can be inferred from the circumstances of the case. We need not dwell upon this argument as the complainant has not filed any appeal challenging the relevant finding of the State Commission and the rejection of his claim qua damages/compensation. Learned Counsel for the respondent referred to the reply filed by the complainant to the Memo of appeal and which he has styled as ''written statement and counter appeal on behalf of respondent. In the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there is no provision for filing "counter appeal" in such manner adopted by the respondent. If he was aggrieved with any part of the order of the State Commission, he ought to have filed a regular appeal as provided under the Act. Hence we are not going into the grievances of the respondent against the order of the State Commission.

HOWEVER , we think that the complainant is not entitled to the refund of Rs. 18,890/- (mentioned as item No. (iii) as the annual rent of T.P. Circuit etc.) in full. The circuit was properly working upto the end of June, 1989. The deficiency in the rendering of services qua the circuit occurred from July only. The complainant is thus liable to pay to the Department the rent etc. for the period the T.P. Circuit worked to his satisfaction. The complainant is, therefore, only entitled to the proportionate refund in rent etc. of item No. (iii) for the month of July, 1989 and onwards. The Order of the State Commission shall stand modified to that extent For the reasons aforesaid we do not find any force in the present appeal and dismiss the same except with the slight modification in the order of the State Commission as observed in the preceding para. We make no order as to costs.