CHENNAI TELEPHONES vs Y.M. HATHIWALA

THE opposite party in O.P. No. 121/98 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant. THE respondent herein filed the complaint alleging that his telephone was not working for the period from 18.2.1995 to 24.2.1995, that application for shifting the telephone was not attended to within a reasonable time, that the Department took more than three months for shifting the telephone from one place to another within the same telephone exchange and these things amounted to deficiency in service. THE compensation claimed was Rs. 50,000.

THE opposite party/appellant resisted the complaint stating that the application was processed and the line was disconnected on 2.2.1995 as per the request of the complainant that even though the shift was within the same exchange area, the work could not be completed for want of cable pairs, that as and when the cable pairs were strengthened at the new area, the line was put through on 22.4.1995, that the opposite party allowed rental rebate for the non-working period from 18.2.1995 to 21.4.1995 and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On the side of the complainant, Ex. A1 series were marked. There were no documents filed on the side of the opposite party/appellant.

The District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and directed the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 by way of cost. There was also a direction given to the opposite party to give rental rebate for the telephone from 2.2.1995 to 21.4.1995. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was delay in effecting shift as the cable pairs had to be strengthened at the new area. As soon as this was done, the line was put through on 22.4.1995 and therefore there was no deficiency in service. We are of the view that for a local shift within the same exchange limits, the time taken by the appellant/opposite party was too long. They had taken more than two months to effect the local shift. This delay should have been avoided and because of the delay in shifting the telephone, the complainant was deprived of the use of the telephone. As regards the rental rebate, even according to the appellant, disconnection was done on 2.2.1995 but the rebate had been given only from 18.2.1995. For the period from 2.2.1995 to 18.2.1995 also, the complainant is entitled to be given the rental rebate. The view taken by the District Forum in this regard cannot be taken exception to. However, as regards the compensation of Rs. 3,000 we are of the view that it is on the high side. For non-shifting of the telephone and the consequent inconvenience and hardship suffered by him, the complainant could be paid a sum of Rs. 1,500 instead of Rs. 3,000.

IN the result, the appeal shall stand allowed to the extent of the modification made by us, i.e., instead of Rs. 3,000 as compensation, we direct the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,500 as compensation. IN other respects, the order of the District Forum shall stand. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal. Appeal partly allowed.