R.N. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(1)(d), section 14(1)(d) and section 2(1)(b) - cases referred: 1994 (3) cpj 140 (nc). 1994 (1) con.c 96 (db). comparative citation: 1995 (3) cpj 328.....for the purposes of grant of a new telephone connection under that category which are run by public funds and for the benefit of general public. the aforesaid institutions had failed to show that they were run by public funds. for this reason the said applicants did not fulfil the condition of eligibility and new telephone connection could not be given. it was explained that at the time of registration no verification of eligibility condition is done and registration is accepted on presentation of the application at the specified counter. when the turn of the registrant matures in a particular category the computer prepared ob nos. and verification about the eligibility for that particular category is carried out at that stage. in the present case ob was issued by the computer on.....

Judgment:

A.P. Chowdhri, J:

1. Agra Institute of Technology and Dr. R.N. Gupta Technical Education Society applied for two telephones under the Non-OYT Spl. Category on 18.8.93 by depositing Rs. 3,000/- each as registration charges. The telephones were not installed and ultimately a letter dated 15.4.94 was received informing the applicants that their case was not covered under the Non-OYT Spl. Category according to the rules and the registrants could change the registration to Non-OYT Genl. Category or apply for refund of the registration fee. R.N. Gupta, President of the two above named Societies filed the present complaint with the averments that he was 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Dr. Act. He was entitled to be given telephone connections under the Non-OYT Spl. Category. He had produced Exemption Certificate granted by the Income-tax Authorities. The complainant has claimed damages amounting to Rs. 11,20,000/- as per following details:—

1	"1.Transport charges incurred due to lack of telephone from 1.2.94 inspite of orders passed by the authorities for telephone and expenses of visiting offices.	Rs. 100000/-
2	Damages in the form of loss sustained on account of lackness of communication gap with parents of students inside and outside Delhi to develop strength.	Rs. 1000000/-
3	Pain and sufferings sustained by complainant because of rude attitude and behavior of Mr. Miglani (C.O./C) Jagat Ram (S.S/C) Mr. R.K. Sawhney and Mr. R. Batra/AGM/C.	Rs. 20000/-
		Rs. 1120000/-"

3. In the written version, the Respondents have raised a number of preliminary objections. It has been pleaded that the claim has been falsely inflated without there being any evidence of the loss suffered by the complainant. It has further been pleaded that non provision of a telephone under the special category on the ground that the complainant did not fall in that category did not amount to any deficiency in service and the complaint was not maintainable it has further been stated that the complainant had only registered for a new telephone connection and had not yet become a consumer within the meaning of the C.P. Act. Further objection raised by the O.P. is that the applications for two new connections were made in the name of Agra Institute of Technology and Dr. R.N. Gupta Technical Education Society but the present complaint had been filed by Dr. R.N. Gupta as an individual and it was, therefore, not maintainable. It has next been stated that the category under which applications were made was Non-OYT Spl. Category under the heading of Public Institution. According to the guidelines issued by the Department of Telecommunica tions only those institutions were to be considered for the purposes of grant of a new telephone connection under that category which are run by public funds and for the benefit of general public. The aforesaid institutions had failed to show that they were run by public funds. For this reason the said applicants did not fulfil the condition of eligibility and new telephone connection could not be given. It was explained that at the time of registration no verification of eligibility condition is done and registration is accepted on presentation of the application at the specified counter. When the turn of the registrant matures in a particular category the computer prepared OB Nos. and verification about the eligibility for that particular category is carried out at that stage. In the present case OB was issued by the computer on the basis of maturity of registration on 1.2.94. Before, however OB could be issued, it came to light during verification that the applicants did not fall in the category of public institution in which they had registered themselves. The OB prepared on 1.2.92 was, thus, held back. The applicants were given due opportunity to show that it fulfilled the aforesaid condition of eligibility. All that the complainant could produce was the Income-tax Exemption Certificate which stated that institution was running in the interest of public welfare. This did not tentamount to the Institution running with public funds. Thereafter the applicants submitted an additional copy of the Auditor's report which also failed to disclose that the Institution was receiving any public funds. It was in these circumstances intimated to the applicants that they were not covered under the Non-OYT Spl. Category and that the OB which had been prepared and had not been issued, were cancelled on 30.3.94. With regard to the D.O. letters written by Sh. Jagdish Tytler, Minister, to his counterpart in the M/o Communications, it was stated that no sanction of the new telephone connections could be read in those letters or any other order which might have been passed in these cases. Averments with regard to alleged misbehavior on the part of certain functionaries of the respondents were vehemently denied. The other material averments were controverted.

4. In the rejoinder, the complainant controverted the plea that the claim had been falsely inflated but did not furnish any basis for claiming the amount by way of damages. The other pleas and averments made in the written version were also traversed.

5. The parties have relied on the various documents to which reference has been made in the above narrative. On behalf of the respondents affidavit Mr. Ravinder Malik, Commercial Officer (South), MTNL has been filed. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. At the time of hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant brought to our notice that All India Council for Technical Education had granted approval for the establishment of Aditya Institute of Technology, New Delhi for the conduct of diploma courses to Dr. R.N. Gupta Education Society for the establishment of Aditya Institute of Technology. A copy of the letter issued in this behalf by All India Council for Technical Education dated 30.4.95 was placed on record. This letter does not go to show that the applicant Institutions were run by public funds. The letter, therefore, does not advance the case of the complainant. Insofar as the condition of eligibility for Non-OYT Spl. Category relating to public institutions is concerned.

6. A perusal of the complaint shows that allegations with regard to the claim for all the three items in the break-up of the compensation claimed are totally vague. During the hearing as well, the learned Counsel for the complainant was unable to explain on what basis have the amounts claimed been worked out. We have, therefore, no doubt at all that the amount claimed is grossly inflated and the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this score alone. We are supported in taking this view by decision of the National Commission in Brij Mohan Kher v. Dr. N.H. Banka and Another, III (1994) CPJ 140 (NC).

7. The complainant had admittedly only registered in routine by depositing the registration fee. The applicants did not, therefore, become 'consumer' within the meaning of 'consumer' as defined in the C.P. Act. For this preposition we seek support from the decision of the Gujarat State Commission (supra).

8. With regard to the third objections namely that the present complaint is not maintainable as it has not been filed by the two Societies which had registered as applicants but by Dr. R.N. Gupta in his individual capacity. We do not find substance in this objection, as Mr. R.N. Gupta has instituted the present complaint as President of the said two registered Societies and it is only a matter of description whether the Societies have filed the complaint through the President or the President has filed the complaints as President of the two Societies.

9. Coming to the next objections we find that the applicants failed to show that the two Societies were being run by public funds. Even at the time of hearing learned Counsel for the complainant was unable to show that the Societies were being run by public funds. That being so the two Societies did not fall within the meaning of Public Institutions. Necessary condition of eligibility as per guidelines had not, therefore, been fulfilled and no fault can be found with the impugned decision of the O.P.

On behalf of the complainant our attention was invited to a decision of this Commission in Y.P. Lamba v. M.T.N.L., 1994 (1) Current Consumer Cases 96 (DB). This decision is clearly distinguishable on the ground that it related to "Tatkal Category" which is different from the category of Non-OYT Spl. Category. Conditions of eligibility for the two categories are distinct.

For the above reasons we find no merit in this complaint. It is accordingly dismissed with Rs. 500/- as costs. Copy of this order be communicated to both the parties.

Complaint dismissed.