CHENNAI TELEPHONES vs OCTAGON INFORMATION SYSTEMS (P) LTD.

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31st day of July, 1997 in O.P. No. 212/96 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras North. The appellants are the opposite parties while the respondent is the complainant.

THE complainant, it appears, had two telephone numbers viz., 611292 and 617534. THE first telephone, it appears, was not functioning from 22.6.1996 and he lodged a complaint with the opposite parties two days later i.e., on 24.6.1996 which was registered as Complaint No. 6 of 1996. THE complaints in writing were also lodged on 26.6.1996, 3.7.1996 and 10.7.1996 with regard to the non-functioning of the said telephone. But the oppsite parties, it is said, have failed and neglected to put the above telephone in good working condition. Due to the indifference and negligence of the opposite parties the complainant had to suffer irreparable loss. THE act of the opposite parties also amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint was launched before the Forum below for a direction to the opposite parties to put the telephone No. 611292 in good working condition and for payment of compensation and costs in an appropriate amount. The opposite parties filed their objections reflecting as below : As per the fault history report dated 6.9.1996 no fault had been reported for the last four months in telephone No. 611292. One telephone complaint was received on 24.6.1996 that the telephone No. 611292 was out of order. But on testing the line, the opposite parties found that there was no fault in the said telephone. The complainant was duly informed about it. The telephone number 611292 was working normally and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

When the complainant is having another telephone viz., bearing No. 617534, there is absolutely no chance of facing any suffering or irreparable loss. Excepting the complaint dated 24.6.1996 no further complaint was received about the non-functioning of the telephone No. 611292.

THE fortnight meter reading reveals that the complainant was making calls normally from 16.6.1996 to 28.6.1996. THE complainant is having two telephone Nos. viz., 611292 and 617534 which have been terminated on his own EPABX system with internal extensions within the same compound. THE non-functioning of the telephone as alleged by the complainant might have been caused by his own equipments and internal wiring of the EPABX system. The Forum below, after taking into consideration the relevant materials placed on record and after hearing the projection of hues of views by the parties through their respective learned Counsel, ultimately came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and ultimately directed the opposite parties to put the complainant''s telephone No. 611292 in good working condition and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and cost of Rs. 500/- within two months from the date of its order failing which the complainant would be at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ARGUMENTS of learned Counsel Mr. S. Thiagarajan, appearing for the appellants/opposite parties and learned Counsel Ms. K.P. Kiran Rao representing learned Counsel Mr. Prakash Gokalani representing the respondent/complainant, were heard. Even at the outset, we may point out that there are absolutely no merits warranting interference with the order of the Forum below on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The appellants/opposite parties would, of course, contend that there was no deficiency in service on their part and this sort of an argument is posed placing reliance on Ex. B1 fault report and Ex. B2 meter reading from 14.9.1995 to 29.8.1996. No doubt true it is that on perusal of Ex. B1 we are able to perceive that there was no fault in the said telephone for the period covered in the report for about nearly four months. From a perusal of Ex. B2 we are also able to decipher that the telephone in question was not functioning from 28.6.1996 to 11.7.1996 thereby recording "0" calls. Similarly, it is also revealed by the said Ex. B2 that the telephone in question was found not working from 11.7.1996 to 27.7.1996, in the sense of recording "0" calls. The complaint made by the complainant is that the said telephone was not working from 15.6.1996 to 22.6.1996. Ex. B2 report, of course, shows calls recorded between the period 15.6.1996 to 28.6.1996 as 213 calls. The fact that such calls were made does not mean that the telephone in question was functioning. The recording of 213 calls, as already stated, is for the period from 15.6.1996 to 28.6.1996. We have to recapitulate to our mind that it is the contention of the complainant that the said telephone in question was not functioning on and from 22.6.1996. If that be the case, recording of calls as above to the tune of 213 calls will not, by any stretch of imagination mean that the telephone during the period in question was functioning. This apart, though in the objections filed the opposite parties denied having received the subsequent two complaints yet they would admit only that the first complaint had been received. This sort of a claim as made by the 1st opposite party is disproved by Ex. A2 to Ex. A3 letters of different dates sent by the complainant to the opposite parties as respects the non-functioning of the telephone in question and the said complaint had been received by the opposite parties by acknowledging the same. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the Forum below in recording a finding of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, especially when they have not attended to properly the complaints made by the complainant on different dates, cannot at all be said to be not sustainable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The Forum below, of course, granted compensation on a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the business loss and mental agony and cost of Rs. 500/- to the complainant. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we rather feel that it would be appropriate to reduce the compensation so granted for the business loss and mental agony and anguish to a reasonable sum of Rs. 3,000/- and we accordingly do so. The Forum below granted only a sum of Rs. 500/- by means of cost of the proceedings which, we feel, is reasonable not calling for any interference.

THE order of the Forum below is modified to the extent as indicated above.

THE appeal is thus disposed of. However, we make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal disposed of.