The Rs. 3 Story – The Three Coin Case

Background:

In a case that became famously known as the “Three Coin Case”, Prof. Manubhai Shah, a noted consumer rights advocate, experienced firsthand the failure of a public telephone service at the Ahmedabad Airport.

When his flight was delayed, Prof. Shah attempted to use a public payphone to convey an urgent message to his colleagues in Delhi. Although he could hear them clearly, they were unable to hear or understand him, despite three separate attempts—each time losing a one-rupee coin.

The Telecom Department refused to refund the ₹3/-, asserting that the telephone was in “perfect working order.”

Legal Proceedings:

Refusing to accept this indifference, Prof. Shah filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

The District Forum held that the complaint was justified and passed the following order:

• Refund of ₹3/- for the failed calls.
• ₹750/- as compensation for inconvenience and harassment.
• ₹250/- as cost of proceedings.

The total award amounted to ₹1,003/-.

The Telephone Department appealed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which dismissed the appeal and added an additional ₹250/- as cost, increasing the total compensation to ₹1,253/-.

In an exemplary gesture, Prof. Shah retained only ₹3/- (the amount lost) and donated ₹1,250/- to CERC, symbolizing that the case was about consumer rights, not personal gain.

Observations and Directions of the Forum:

The District Forum made an important observation about the public importance of essential communication services, stating:

“In India, consumers use public telephones primarily in emergencies—such as calling an ambulance, fire brigade, police, or railway station. Therefore, public telephones must remain functional 24 hours a day. The department must ensure immediate rectification of faults by posting responsible personnel near such facilities.”

Significance of the Judgment:

This seemingly small case involving just ₹3/- became a symbol of consumer empowerment and accountability in public services. It reinforced that no grievance is too small and that every consumer has the right to quality service, irrespective of the monetary value involved.

The judgment also emphasized the duty of government departments to ensure uninterrupted and efficient public utility services, especially where citizens rely on them during emergencies.