CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



First Appeal no.846/2008 Date of Filing: 13/06/2008

Consumer Complaint No.497/2004

District Consumer Forum: Mumbai Suburban Date of Order: 15/06/2009



Sandeep Manohar Desai, Appellant

Trustee, (Org.Complainant)

Shloka Missionaries,

A-6, the Ujval Co-Op.Housing Society Ltd.,

Road No.6, Pandurangwadi,

Goregaon(East), Mumbai- 400 063

V/S.

1. Shri Ram Shankar, Respondents

General Manger, (Org.Opp.Parties)

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Mumbai

3rd floor, Goregaon Telephone Exchange,

S.V.Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai- 400 062.



2. Shri R.S.Kamble,

Asst. Chief Accounts Officer (WLL),

Office of AOTR (ACCT),

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Mumbai

4th floor, Goregaon Telephone Exchnage,

S.V.Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai- 400 062.



3. Shri R.L.Dubey,

Executive Director,

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Mumbai

15th floor, Telephone House,

Veer Savaarkar Marg, Prabhadevi,

Dadar(West) Mumbai- 400 028.



&



First Appeal no.854/2008 @M.Ano.1181/2008 Date of Filing: 18/06/2008

Consumer Complaint No.497/2004

District Consumer Forum: Mumbai Suburban Date of Order: 15/06/2009



1. Shri Ram Shankar, Appellants

General Manger, (Org.Opp.Parties)

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Mumbai

3rd floor, Goregaon Telephone Exchange,

S.V.Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai- 400 062.



2. Shri R.S.Kamble,

Asst. Chief Accounts Officer (WLL),

Office of AOTR (ACCT),

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Mumbai

4th floor, Goregaon Telephone Exchnage,

S.V.Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai- 400 062.



3. Shri R.L.Dubey,

Executive Director,

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Mumbai

15th floor, Telephone House,

Veer Savaarkar Marg, Prabhadevi,

Dadar(West) Mumbai- 400 028.

V/s.

Sandeep Manohar Desai, Respondent

Trustee, (Org.Complainant)

Shloka Missionaries,

A-6, the Ujval Co-Op.Housing Society Ltd.,

Road No.6, Pandurangwadi,

Goregaon(East), Mumbai- 400 063.





Corum : Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member.



Present: Org.Complainant/ Sandeep Manohar Desai in person.

Adv.Shri S.D.Shukla for respondent.



:- ORDER :-

Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

1. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgement since they arises out of same impugned order/award passed in consumer complaint no.497/2004, Sandeep Manohar Desai V/s. Shri Ram Shankar, General Manger,

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Mumbai & Ors. by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban (Forum below in short). Appeal No.846/2008 is filed by original complainant/Shri Sandip Manohar Desai, while Appeal No.854/2008 is filed by org.opposite party nos.1 to 3.

2. It is the case of complainant/Shri Sandip Manohar Desai who filed consumer complaint describing himself as a Trustee of Shloka Missionaries, a registered Public Trust, has a grievance that Shloka Missionaries (hereinafter referred as the Trust) had applied for a landline connection with M.T.N.L., Mumbai. Accordingly, work order no.14236 dated 26/05/2004 was issued but M.T.N.L. could not provide a telephone connection for want of availability of telephone lines. Thereafter, considering the need of the Trust, as a stop gap arrangement, one FWT connection was provided and subsequently, in its place as per request made by Trust, FWP connection was provided. When later on, on availability of telephone lines a landline connection was offered, it could not be provided since the trust failed to clear the arrears of telephone connections given under FWP and FWT and dispute was raised about the payment of those charges. Subsequently, this consumer complaint was filed by Shri Sandip M.Desai against officials of M.T.N.L. (not against M.T.N.L.). The complaint came to be allowed. The M.T.N.L. was directed to provide landline connection to the complainant within 8 days from the date of receipt of the order and failing which penalty of Rs.1,000/- per month was levied on M.T.N.L. and it was also declared that demand for FWP/ FWT service charges stands cancelled and lastly, in addition to it, M.T.N.L. was directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby, org.opposite party preferred Appeal No.854/2008, while the complainant showing his dissatisfaction with the impugned order/award filed A.No. 846/2008, supra.

3. We heard org.complainant/ Shri Sandeep Manohar Desai in person and Adv.Shri S.D.Shukla for opposite party/Officials of M.T.N.L. (Appellants in F.A.No.854/2008 and respondents in F.A.No.846/2008). Perused the record.

4. No doubt technicality should be avoided to do the justice in the era of consumer complaint, it does not mean that sine-quo-non basic issues and aspects are to be ignored. In the instant case Shri Sandip M.Desai, is the complainant and styled himself as a Trustee of Shloka Missionaries. There is nothing on record to show that Shloka Missionaries which a Public Trust and as such a Legal Person had authorised to initiate action of this consumer complaint or authorised Mr.Sandip M.Desai to bring such action. Further, accepting the averments made in the complaint on their face value, it is the trust who is as a consumer of M.T.N.L. Neither Shri Sandip M.Desai nor officials of M.T.N.L., namely, opp.party no.1/Shri Ram Shankar, General Manager, opp.party no.2/Shri R.S.Kamble, Asstt.Chief Accounts Officer (WLL) nor opp.party no.3/Shri R.L.Dubey, Executive Director, M.T.N.L. have any intense relationship of a consumer and service provider. The relation of any of its kind, if any, could be utmost in between the trust and M.T.N.L. Therefore, this consumer complaint ought to have been dismissed on that count only.

5. Admittedly, FWT and FWP services, as recounted earlier, were offered to the trust and installed at its place and bills accordingly for their use was raised as per bills dated 06/08/2004, 06/09/2004, 28/10/2004, 06/11/2004 and 06/12/2004 respectively amounting to Rs.962/-, Rs.557/-, Rs.179/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.612/-. If one looked to the correspondence entered on behalf of the trust in respect of those bills, it could be seen that referring to the nature of organization the trust claimed concession in tariff or changes levelled in the bills. It is not that services were used or those services were never provided. In this background a reference can be made to several letters amongst others Annexure J to L dated 16/09/2004, 17/09/2004 and 22/09/200. If any such concession is not given by the M.T.N.L., then it will not amount to any deficiency in service on part of M.T.N.L. It, certainly, cannot be an unfair trade practice within meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act for sake of brevity) as alleged by the complainant. Further referring to the averments made in the complaint, the grievances made were particularly against M.T.N.L., which is not a party. As far as averments made against the officials of M.T.N.L., who are opposite parties, there is hardly anything to fasten personal liability on them for any alleged deficiency in service on their part. Even the operative order of the impugned order/award shows confusion in the mind of Forum below. It refers to opposite party/M.T.N.L. and not opposite parties as named in the consumer complaint. Under the circumstances, the impugned order/award will not stand in the eyes of law. The same cannot be supported at all. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-



:-ORDER-:

1. Appeal No. 846/2008 stands dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/- payable to each one of the respondents by appellant/Shri Sandip M.Desai.

2. Appeal No.854/2008 is allowed. Impugned order/award dated 09/04/2008 stands set aside and in turn complaint stands dismissed. However, in this appeal there is no separate order as to costs since costs are awarded in A.No.846/2008.

3. Both the appeals stands disposed of accordingly.

4. M.Ano.1181/2008 for Stay stands disposed of as become infructuous.

5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.





(S.P.Lale) (S.R.Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member