- (1.) THE complainant s case is that she has a telephone connection with indicator No. 78674 which was installed in the year 1996. Later, the indicator number was changed to 258674. The telephone did not function properly and, therefore, several complaints were made. Finally on 25.3.1996 it was repaired. During night times, the complainant has been receiving malicious calls which caused considerable mental agony to the complainant. The complainant, therefore, reported to the opposite parties about the same. The opposite parties failed to take steps. Finally on 25.11.1996, the complainant sent a complaint to the opposite parties 2 to 4. She also met the opposite parties 2 to 4 and requested them to take suitable steps. But so far no action has been taken. Hence the complaint.
(2.) THE opposite parties contended as follows: The complaints about the non -functioning of the telephone were attended and rectified. The complaint sent on 12.4.1996 was not addressed to the proper persons. Yet, the said complaint was forwarded to the concerned officials and the telephone of the complainant was kept under observation. Action has been taken according to the guidelines regarding malicious calls. There were four malicious calls in December, 1996. The calls were each for a duration of 1 to 2 minutes. Hence the complainant could not trace out the person who made the calls. There is no basis in the complaint to suspect the staff of the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties pray that the complaint may be dismissed.
(3.) THE lower Forum by majority accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to take action in accordance with Ex. B -3 and render necessary relief and also to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. However, the President of the lower Forum did not agree with the view of the majority and has passed a separate order dismissing the complaint. The present appeal is laid by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the majority. It is admitted in the version that certain malicious calls were received by the complainant during December, 1996. According to the opposite parties, 4 such obnoxious calls were received. Since all the calls were below 1 to 2 minutes duration, it was not possible for them to identify the caller since they were passed via Junction from E 10 B Exchange and at that time Calling Line Identification Plan [CLIP] facility was not available. As regards obnoxious calls, the guidelines is to the effect that in cases when the offending telephone number cannot be traced as per prescribed technical procedure, intimation should be sent that efforts are being continued to trace the same and when the offending telephone number is traced successfully and the call is conclusively declared as obnoxious, action will be taken to disconnect the offending number. The complaining subscriber should also be intimated about the decision of the Department to issue a notice of disconnection to the subscriber of the offending telephone number. It also provides that while obnoxious caller is conversing, the calling telephone number should be traced by suitable technical arrangements as prescribed. Here in this case, according to the opposite parties, the duration of the calls was less than 2 minutes and as there were no facilities then, they could not trace out the identity of the caller. According to them, certain calls were received only in the month of December, 1996 and the calls were of lesser duration and, therefore, it was not possible for them to fix the identity of the caller. The guidelines provide that if the identity of the caller could not be fixed, they have to intimate the complainant of the same and that as soon as the identity is fixed, they must report to the complainant. Of course, in the case on hand, they have not complied with the guidelines in the sense that they have not sent any report to the complainant to the effect that they are tracing. Thus, this is a case where the opposite parties could not trace the phone number from which the obnoxious calls emanated. But in the version they have stated that they took steps to identify the caller but could not succeed because the duration of the calls were less than two minutes. In such circumstances, it has to be seen whether there is any deficiency in service. The complainant is of course exaggerating that she received obnoxious calls from 24.11.1994 to 4.2.1997. For, the telephone itself was installed in the house of the complainant only on 3.5.1995. Therefore, she could not have had any obnoxious calls prior to that. Ex. A -13 relates to the checking of the phone. Ex. A -12 is the letter by which they have informed the complainant that they have received the letter of the complainant and have referred to the concerned field officers. In such circumstances, it is to be noted whether the case can be brought under the umbrella of "deficiency in service" since whatever that could be done by them have been done by them. It is also not the case now put forward that even after the complaint obnoxious calls continue to come. They were thus only in December, 1996. Therefore, the guidelines have been followed in the sense that they observed the instructions and noted that certain obnoxious calls were made. But in view of the duration of the calls, they were not in a position to fix the identity of the caller since the Exchange was not provided with such equipment to attend to such a situation. Of course, the guidelines require that a reply has to be sent informing the parties that they are taking suitable steps to trace it out. The complainant ought to have been informed by the opposite parties that they are taking steps to trace out the caller. But the omission to do the same cannot amount to deficiency in service since the complainant has nothing to complain about the service rendered by the Telephone Department otherwise on the telephone connection. What has happened in this case is practically an act of trespass by a third party for which the Department cannot be made liable and at best what the Department could do is to follow the guidelines to find out the culprit or trespasser and inform the complainant about the same. That is in the nature of an extra service to be rendered by the opposite parties in keeping with the spirit of the guidelines. In our opinion, that guidelines cannot take the place of a rule or a law enacted by the Parliament or the State Legislature and it cannot be brought under the Act amounting to deficiency in service. Hence, we have no hesitation in rejecting the complaint thereby upholding the view of the President of the lower Forum.;