JUDGMENT- Justice B.S. YADAV, President :--In both these revision petitions the challenge is against the order dated 30-9-1992 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh, by which the appeals filed by the Telecom District Manager, Hissar and the complainant, Dev Raj, against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Hissar, have been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that Mr. Dev Raj, Advocate, who is the petitioner in Revision Petition No. 6 of 1993 and respondent in Revision Petition No. 564 of 1992, had filed complaint before the aforesaid District Forum on the ground that the Telecom District Manager, Hissar, who is the petitioner in Revision Petition No. 564 of 1992 and respondent in Revision Petition No. 6 of 1993, was legally bound to publish the telephone directory annually between the months of June and September. However, the 1st directory was published by the department in 1987 stating on its 1st page corrected up to January, 1987. The issue of the directory was of 1986. No directory, agenda or corrigendum has been published thereafter and thus the said directory is practically of no use as during the last four years more than nearly a thousand telephone numbers had been changed in the area due to disconnection of STD facility or on technical grounds and more that 2,000 new telephone connections have been provided. It was further alleged that because of the non-publication of directory the complainant who is a subscriber of a telephone and indeed all the subscribers in the area were facing untold inconvenience, physical and mental harassment and financial loss in locating the number they wish to dial. It was pointed out that the enquiry number 197 is a metered number and as such calls made thereto for enquiry were chargeable and added to the subscribers bill. Moreover, the service of this number was not available for all the 24 hours and, apart from that, even during the relevant hours the same remains unattended and invariably there was little or no response therefrom. 3. In the counter the department averred that it has been intimating the list of changed telephone numbers in the newspaper, but due to administrative and financial reasons a new directory could not be published after the 1986 issue. 4. 3. In the counter the department averred that it has been intimating the list of changed telephone numbers in the newspaper, but due to administrative and financial reasons a new directory could not be published after the 1986 issue. 4. The District Forum came to the opinion that by not publishing the directory, clearly the department was depriving the subscribers of a lawful right and a valuable facility. It, therefore, ordered payment of Rs. 400/- as compensation to the claimant plus Rs. 100/- per year for not releasing the telephone directory. 5. Feeling aggrieved of that order, both the department and Dev Raj filed separate appeals before the State Commission, Haryana. 6. The Sate Commission referred to Rule 452 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, which prescribes the supply of a copy of the telephone directory free of charge to each of the subscribers. The State Commission therefore, came to the opinion that in view of the above rule, the department was under legal obligation to publish the telephone directory and to furnish them to subscribers. However, as the Rule 452 does not speak about the publication of the telephone directory, the State Commission took support from the compilation published under the title "Swamys Treatise on the Telephone Rules and Instructions". The relevant instruction about the periodicity of the publication of the telephone directory has been extracted by the State Commission and it runs as follows : "Telephone directories will be brought out annually between the months of June and September every year" Adverting to the said instructions, the State Commission held that it visualised the publication of a directory annually and it would be otherwise somewhat obvious that the extending of the telephone services would be somewhat incomplete, if not farcical, if the number of other subscribers who are to be called is not made known. The State Commission further added that the inordinate delay in the publication of the telephone directory as required by the statutory Rule 452 or regulations and instructions consequential thereto was a deficiency in the service undertaken to be rendered to the telephone subscribers by the department. Consequently, the appeal of the department was dismissed. The complainant Dev Rajs appeal who had asked for a compensation to the tune of Rs. Consequently, the appeal of the department was dismissed. The complainant Dev Rajs appeal who had asked for a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- was also dismissed on the ground that there was no foundational base for interference with the order of the District Forum which had quantified the compensation at reasonable amount. 7. Still not being satisfied, both the parties have come before this Commission by way of these two revision petitions. 8. The department in its revision petition has alleged that the State Commission as well as District Forum have not properly appreciated the provisions of Rules 452 and 457 of the Telegraph Rules. Dev Raj in his revision petition claimed for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 1,000/- on the ground that the State Commission has erred in not considering his status while rejecting his claim for enhancement. 9. We have heard both the parties and have carefully gone through the records. We are of the opinion that in the present case the District Forum as well as the State Commission exceeded the jurisdiction vested in them. 10. The State Commission relied upon Rule 452 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, framed under the powers by the Indian Telegraph Act. The said rule only lays down that "a copy of the telephone directory shall be supplied free of charge for each telephone extension or party line, rented by the subscriber from an exchange system or private branch exchange or a private exchange". As noticed earlier, the said rule or any other rule framed under the Indian Telegraph Act does not lay down that at what intervals fresh telephone directory should be published by the department. 11. It is further to be noted that the telephone directory is not the property of the subscriber. Rule 457 lays down that any telephone directory provided by the department shall remain its exclusive property and shall be delivered on demand. Under that rule, the department has also reserved its right to amend or delete any entry in the telephone directory at any time and undertakes no responsibility for any omission and further that it shall not entertain any claim or compensation on account of any entry in or omission from the telephone directory or error therein. Under that rule, the department has also reserved its right to amend or delete any entry in the telephone directory at any time and undertakes no responsibility for any omission and further that it shall not entertain any claim or compensation on account of any entry in or omission from the telephone directory or error therein. Therefore, the complainants grievance that he is inconvenienced in locating the new numbers is unfounded because even if a new telephone directory is published and there is any omission of some entries, the complainant cannot hold the department liable for claim for compensation for that omission. He will have to take resort to the Directory Enquiry No. 197 which is meant for seeking and obtaining information. 12. The periodicity of the publication of the telephone directory is contained in some instructions issued by the department to its officers. We have not been able to understand how a subscriber can take benefit of these instructions. It has not been shown that those instructions are mandatory or have the force of law. Deficiency has been described in Clause (g) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act as follows : "`deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner or performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service." When the instructions have no force of law it is difficult to say that the department is guilty of any deficiency. It also cannot be said that the department has undertaken to perform that service in a certain manner as part of the contract or otherwise in relation to the service. As far as the subscriber is concerned, the only point to be seen is whether his telephone is working properly and if there is any fault in it, it is properly attended to. 13. For the reasons given above, the revision petition filed by the department is liable to be accepted while the complainants revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. 13. For the reasons given above, the revision petition filed by the department is liable to be accepted while the complainants revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. However, realising the fact that non-publication of the telephone directory for years together must be causing some inconvenience to subscribers, therefore, we direct that the telephone department shall, as far as possible, publish the telephone directory every two years. In case during that interval of two years there is any large number of changes in the telephone numbers of the subscribers, the department will publish addenda or corrigendum. 15. With the above directions, we accept the Revision Petition No. 564 of 1992 and set aside the orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum. With the result the Revision Petition No. 6 of 1993 is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. Orders accordingly. *****