CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD
Dated this the 17th December, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 14/10/2014
CC /158/2014
A.K.Balakumar,
S/o.A.Krishnamoorthy Chettiar (Late), : Complainant
31/147, Pattikkara Street,
Palakkad-14.
(Party in Person)
Vs
General Manager, BSNL,
Palakkad SSA, Sanchar Bhavan, : Opposite party
T.B.Road, Palakkad.
(By Adv.P.K.Devadas)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The case of the complainant is that he is a subscriber of landline with number 2502725 and the mobile phone with number 9400502725 for the last 22 years and the telephone directory of BSNL has destroyed his life. When the complainant’s mother had fallen into a well he looked into the phone directory and contacted the number 2502001 which was given against the fire service. But it happened to be the number of Adv.John John practicing mostly criminal cases. Then he had contacted 101 and get the fire service. Because of this, delay was caused and his mother could not be saved and the police after checking the telephone numbers found that the complainant had contacted Adv.John John first. Police put him and his children behind the bars and charged a case against him alleging that the complainant had killed his mother after consulting Adv.John John. All these happened to him only because of the wrong number shows in the telephone directory. Hence he issued a notice to the BSNL demanding the compensation but no reply was received from them. Hence he had approached before the Forum seeking an order to pay Rs.20 lakhs as compensation from the opposite parties for the mental agony and sufferings caused to him.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. Opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed their version stating the following contentions.
The complaint is unsustainable either in law or on facts. Complainant does not come under the definition of “consumer” as shown in the Consumer Protection Act. He has neither purchased any goods or hired or availed of any services for consideration from this opposite party and suffered any deficiency in service. The complainant’s grievance is with respect to the printing mistake in the telephone directory which has not been issued to the subscribers against payment of money but a service free of charges. Hence the complainant and the complaint are outside purview of the definition of “consumer and service”. Complaint has to be dismissed.
The opposite party admits that the complainant is a landline subscriber with telephone number 2502725 and the mobile subscriber with number 9400502725 under Palakkad Division. The opposite party disputes the averments in the complaint that on 26/11/2012 he had looked in to the BSNL Telephone directory and dialed from his telephone to Palakkad Fire service number 2505001, as given in the directory, to save his mother who is alleged to have fallen into a well. The very averment that he has looked in to the BSNL telephone directory is untrue. Firstly because the eyes of anyone who even hold the telephone directory cannot miss the numbers “POLICE:100 and FIRE:101” visibly printed on the front cover. Secondly because in page IP2 of the directory just below the words “FIRE SERVICE” It is given “DIAL 101 to get nearest fire station.” And thirdly because in page 96 of the directory below the words “FIRESTATION” it is shown as Dt. Fire off-101 and Fire station – 2505071 and no prudent man especially the complainant, to save the life of the person who has given birth to him will have a second choice or second thought of a different number or a longer number of 7 digits like 2505001 as it is evident from the complaint that its delay which has caused the death of his mother. Everywhere in the directory 101 is shown first and it is one which can be dialed faster with one is in stress and confused like one in his situation. Hence there is no chance of the complainant dialing up the number 2505001 which happened to be Adv.John John’s telephone number. It is also mentioned in page IP3 under the heading “Corrections and omissions in the telephone directory” that “eventhough utmost care has been taken to ensure the correctness of the entries in this directory, there may still be some mistakes that would have crept inadvertently. Esteemed customers are requested to bear with BSNL in this regard. Any corrections/omissions in the telephone directory may please be intimated in the following format.” But neither the Palakkad fire service nor Adv.John John had responded to this request. The opposite party disputes the averment that the complainant has contacted 101 or 2505001 from his landline 2502725 or mobile phone 9400502725 on 26/11/2012. The opposite party disputes that the duty doctor, Dr.Saidali, in the casualty ward of the Govt.hospital had informed that if the complainant’s mother was brought half an hour earlier her life could have been saved, because if he had rang of a wrong number for Palakkad fireservice as stated in the complaint, he would not have taken half an hour to note the correct number shown next to it in all the three pages in the directory. And on the top of it to save an 80 years old lady who has fallen in to a well and she being inside it till the fire service personnels come from the fire station which is situated about 2 k.m away from the complainant’s house that too through the busy streets and narrow lanes to reach his house would have been only a miracle. The opposite party also denies that the police had examined the phone of the complainant, and from the phone directory they came to know that he has contacted the criminal Adv.John John and have registered a crime before JFCM and was remanded to sub jail and that the telephone directory is the cause for the delay in saving the life of his mother and for the complainant’s remand to Sub Jail. Opposite party also denies the allegations in the complaint that the article in the newspaper that mother killed as per the Advocate’s advice has tarnished his name, that his life itself is spoiled and he and his family is not able to walk along the road. They had also denied the allegations that due to the lapse on the path of the BSNL in giving a wrong number in the telephone directory has made him an accused in a criminal case for having beaten and locked in the jail by the police, for having hospitalized and lost the health and that he has to face disgrace. OP admits that the complainant has sent a notice claiming adequate compensation and they had sent a reply disputing all the allegations. The complaint is filed alleging false allegation and advanced only with ulterior motive to escape from the criminal case against the complainant as it is only a contrived afterthought after two months of the incident. The complainant is not entitled to any of the damages claimed in the complaint and hence the complaint has to be dismissed.
Complainant filed chief affidavit. Opposite party also filed affidavit along with application for cross examine the complainant. Complainant also filed application for cross examination of opposite party. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1-A4 was marked from the part of the complainant. Opposite party was cross examined as DW1. And Ext.B1-B5 was marked. The evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite
Party?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
ISSUES 1 & 2
The opposite party contended that the complainant doesn’t come under the definition consumer as shown in the consumer protection act complainant has neither purchased any goods nor hired or availed of any services for as consideration from the opposite party and suffered any deficiency in service. The complainant’s grievance is with respect to the printing mistake in the telephone directory which is not been issued to the subscribers against payment of money but a service free of charge. Hence the complainant is outside the purview of the definition of consumer and service . The opposite party have no where agreed to supply a telephone directory to their subscribers nor have been giving it regularly as it was not mandatory. They have last supplied the telephone directory in the year 2007. Till now no one had complained that BSNL has not supplied the directory because everyone know that it is not mandatory on the part of the BSNL. The opposite party also contented that the eyes of anyone who even hold the telephone directory cannot miss the numbers “POLICE 100 FIRE 101” visibly printed on the front cover. In page IP2 of the directory just below the words “FIRESERVICE” it is given dial 101 to get nearest fire station and also in page 96 in the directory below the words “fIRE STATION” it is shown as “Fire off-101 and Fire station-2505701. Everywhere in the directory 101 is shown first and it is the one which can be dialed faster when one is in distress and confused like one in the complainant’s case. Complainant submitted that the opposite party had fabricated all the evidences before the Forum. They have submitted the call details of 101, 2505001, 2502725. Out of which some pages were attested by C.P.Mohanan, AGM and rest two pages were attested by K.Balakrishnan. Complainant’s allegations is that they were in hard discussions for 11/2 months and because of the conspiracy they have removed his landline number and cell phone number from the call list submitted and claimed that the complainant’s number had not found so as to avoid compensation. The opposite party had submitted 3 directories which are of 3 types. From which it can be presumed that they are tendering false evidence. Complainant alleges that BSNL is misleading its customers by giving false number and distributing the defective directory to the public, which is hazardous and dangerous, which is a punishable offence and he was one of the victim of such defect. He happened to be remanded to Sub Jail due to the mistake of BSNL. Being a service sector they have to be bothered about the service rendered to the public and should be cautious. Eventhough BSNL had stated that they had taken utmost care to ensure the correctness of entries there may be still some mistakes that would have crept inadvertently. Their contention was that the neither the Palakkad Fire service nor Adv.John John had pointed out the mistakes to their office.
Considering the facts and circumstances, described above, we believe that since the complainant was in a confused state he would not have noticed the number printed on the front cover of the directory. He had searched inside the directory as any other number usually done by the consumers. It is evident from Ext.A1 that there is printing mistake in the telephone directory against the number of fire station which is issued by the opposite party. Since the opposite party is collecting rental charges along with the call charges the complainant can be treated as a consumer of the opposite party. Even if the directory is not mandatory it is given to the customers as a service and guideline to help the consumers. BSNL distributes its directory only to the consumers who had availed their connections. Even if there are inadvertent mistakes atleast the emergency numbers should be enter correctly so as to provide better service to the consumers. In this particular case the complainant had suffered mental stress as well as harassment from the police just because he had contacted the number as available in the telephone directory. The opposite party is bound to take utmost care, atleast in the entries of some emergency numbers so as to avoid troubles to the consumers. It is evident from Ext.A1 that the entry shown near the Firestation is a wrong number and unfortunately it happened to be the number of a criminal advocate. The complainant had deposed before this Forum that his criminal case is being conducted by Adv. John John and that a case is pending before the High Court of Kerala in this connection with this matter. As there is no proof of having called the landline number of the complainant in question, to the Fire Service, the complainant ought to have produced his caller ID to prove his case. Since he had admitted in cross examination that he is having caller –ID in his telephone. He had also not examined any personnel from Adv.John John’s office to prove that people used to call to their office as Firestation number. Even then we believe the allegation of the complainant that he had looked into the telephone directory as evident from Ext.A1. Since BSNL is having 2.25 lakhs consumers in Palakkad district it is quiet impossible to correct as much numbers of the directory. They should have verified atleast the emergency numbers so as to avoid confusions and troubles to their customers.
In view of the above discussions we allow the complaint. Considering the above situation we restrict the claim of the complainant and we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation for the printing mistakes occurred in the directory due to their oversight. We also direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the said amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of December, 2015.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 –Telephone directory No.1 page No.96 (Original)
Ext.A2 – Telephone directory No.2 page No.178,179 (Original)
Ext.A3 – Acknowledgement and Postal receipts (Photocopy)
Ext.A4 –Telephone bill of complainant (Original)
Witness marked on the side of complainant
PW1-Balakumar.A.K
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1 – Telephone directory (Original)
Ext.B2 – Certified copy of call details of incoming calls of telephone 101
Ext.B3 – Certified copy of call details of incoming calls of telephone 2505001
Ext.B4 - Certified copy of call details of outgoing calls from landline 2502725 from 07/11/2012 to 30/11/2012
Ext.B5- Reply notice send to the complainant by the General Manager dtd.23/12/2013 (Photostat)
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1-C.P.Mohanan
Cost Allowed
Rs.1000/- as cost.
