State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Goel S. Pal vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited on 25 January, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 25-01-2007 (1) Appeal No. A-1741/2003 (Arising from the order dated 24-07-2003 passed by District Forum(Central), I.S.B.T. Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No.32/2003) Shri Goel S. Pal, Appellant R/o 3-Court Lane, In Person. Civil Lanes, Delhi-110054. Versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Respondent Through its General Manager, Through I.S.B.T. , Kashmere Gate, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Delhi-110054. Advocate. (2) Appeal No. A-195/2000 (Arising from the order dated 31-12-1999 passed by District Forum-I, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No.2439/1998) Shri Goel S. Pal, Appellant R/o 3-Court Lane, In Person. Civil Lanes, Delhi-110054. Versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Respondent Through its General Manager, Through I.S.B.T. , Kashmere Gate, Mr. Sadat Ahmed, Delhi-110054. Advocate. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Both the appeals involve identical questions of law and facts and therefore are being taken up together. Original copy of the judgment be placed in Appeal No.A-1751/2003. Copy of the same be placed in the file of Appeal No. A-195/2000 also.
2. Appellant sent one phonogram to six functionaries by availing services of the respondent. Later on he found that the respondent over charged him and he immediately tried to avail the benefit under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and filed complaints before the District Forum by giving following details as to the over charges:-
Through Appeal No. 1741/2003 Rs. 85.80+ Rs.
112.30 + Ars. 85.30 + Rs. 106.30 + Rs. 84.30 + Rs. 105.30 + Rs. 84.30 + Rs. 105.30 +Rs. 84.80 + Rs. 106.30 + Rs. 85.30 + 106.80 = Rs. 1,152.10
3. In appeal No. A-195/2000 the appellant has neither given details of over-charged amount nor stated as to how much and how he was over charged in various phonograms.
4. Respondent denied the allegations of the appellant and stated that he had sent separate phonograms to six persons with confirmatory copy to each and at the same time took the plea that the messages had been lengthy ones and therefore each phonogram had to be split into two and in that way there were in toto 12 phonograms and he was charged accordingly.
5. Vide impugned order dated 24-07-2003 and 31-12-1999 respectively the District Forum dismissed the complaints of the appellant on the premise that the appellant has failed to refer to the rules on the subject as to what charges should have been made in respect of the phonograms allegedly sent by him.
6. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred these appeals.
7. There is no dispute that the phonograms sent by the appellant run into two pages and were sent to six different persons. According to the respondent the rule permits that no phonogram would exceed 50 words or 15 to 16 lines.
Wherever telegram is lengthy it is split into maximum words depending upon the contents and charges are made accordingly.
8. In our view the appellant is misconstruing the connotation that the splitting of lengthy telegrams does not make any difference on the telegram charges and splitting is done for the smooth transmission of a lengthy telegram only. It does not mean that any person can give telegram running into 500 or 10 pages words and if it is split into 10 or 15 lines the concerned person would pay only for one telegram.
9. Telegrams are meant for urgent messages and that is why there is limitation of words. If the telegrams are written in the form of letters for which inland letters are provided and are being sent through post offices then the whole object and purpose of phonograms or telegrams will be defeated. If a person is interested for such a lengthy telegram he is advised to send it inland letter or through some other mode of communication and should not use the service of telegram or phonogram. If he uses the facility of telegram, it has to be as per rule as to number of words or number of lines. If it exceeds, extra charges are charged.
10. There is no merit in the appeals and both the appeals are hereby dismissed.
11. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
13. Announced on the 25th January, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj