CHENNAI TELEPHONES (NW) vs S. KRISHNACHAND CHORDIA

ON the ground that the telephone installed in Plot No. 150, Chandaprabhoo Vegetarian Village, Puzhal, Chennai-66, has not been functioning properly and that it has not been working since January 1998, the complaint was laid by the complainant claiming a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards damages and to restore the telephone bearing indicator No. 6418608 to its original status.

THE opposite parties disputed the claim on various grounds. The Lower Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. Hence the present appeal.

The order of the lower Forum is somewhat inconsistent. For, in one place the order mentions that the complainant has not chosen to state from when the telephone went dead and that the complainant has not stated the dates on which he made complaints. But in spite of it, the lower Forum has chosen to accept the complaint and directed the payment of compensation. From the records produced, we find that the telephone line was affected due to underground fault and, therefore, it was set right and for the period from 12.11.1997 to 22.12.1997 a rental rebate was given to the complainant. The records produced also prove that the telephone was working from 23.12.1997 to 28.2.1998. A fault was reported again on 16.4.1998 and the same was set right on 30.7.1998. For this period as well, a rebate was given to the complainant. Similarly, there was another fault on 10.8.1998 which was cleared on 20.8.1998. The opposite parties have produced materials to show that during the period from 16.4.1998 to 29.7.1998 the telephone was affected due to damage caused to the underground distribution cable at various points because of the water pipe line work that was being carried out by the Varakeri Panchayat. The fault that has occurred on 10.8.1998 was due to the fall of the postline alignment. Thus we find in their letter Ex. B-1 the Sub-Divisional Engineer has stated the reasons for the occurrence of the fault during those periods. From Exs. B4 to B10, we find that the telephone has been working and functioning. Therefore, during the three spells of period viz., from 12.11.1997 to 22.12.1997 from 16.4.1998 to 30.7.1998 and from 10.8.1998 to 20.8.1998 admittedly the phone went out of order because of reasons that were beyond the control of the opposite parties. The telephone has been functioning satisfactorily till 11.11.1997. The disruption in service that was caused on 12.11.1997 is due to the cable fault which was damaged at various points for which the opposite parties cannot be held liable. As the existing cable was damaged at several points, the service connection to the complainant could not be restored immediately as the cable fault had to be traced out and attended to at various points. Therefore, as there was non-functioning of the telephone for more than 7 days, a rental rebate was also granted to the complainant. From 1.1.1998 to 16.4.1998, the complainant has been using his phone which is evident by the telephone bills. On 16.4.1998, the telephone was affected due to the work carried out for laying water pipe line by Varakeri Panchayat along the cable route. Further, there was widening of road which work also was carried out by the Highways Department during April, May and June, 1998 as a result of which the underground cable was damaged in several places and hence the Telephone Department had to wait for the completion of the work by the other Departments so that the cable fault can be attended to. Thus it was attended to on and after 29.7.1998 and for the period during which the phone was not functioning, a rental rebate was also granted. Thus we find in this case that it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service. For, the telephone cables are laid underground and water lines are also laid underground. Moreover, the telephone lines having been laid underground over which the Highway runs, whenever there was frequent widening of roads and repairs to the roads, it had caused disruption. Therefore, all these factors have contributed to the disruption of service. Therefore, for matters over which the Department did not have any control, we cannot accuse the Department of any deficiency in service. For the period during which the telephone was not operational, necessary remission in rent has been granted. Therefore, taking the practical and broad perspective of the matter into consideration and as the co-ordination and co-operation of various Departments have a role in such matters, we are of the view that the order passed by the lower Forum holding that there is deficiency in service cannot, in the circumstances, be accepted as a reasonable conclusion.

IN the result, this appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs. The order passed by the lower Forum is set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed, but without costs. Appeal allowed.