CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER M.T.N.L. vs PRAN NATH KOHLI

FACTS necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent filed a complaint before District Forum-II with the averments that his telephone went out of order on 21.4.93. Repeated complaints were lodged with the opposite party but the same failed to yield any result. The complainant was, therefore, obliged to file a complaint on 22.6.93. The telephone was set right only on 4.11.93.

THE complaint was contested and the plea taken in the written version was that only three complaints were received from the complainant in April, 93. THE same were promptly attended and the fault set-right either on the same day or the next following day. No complaint was received in the remaining period and the suggestion was that the telephone had not, in fact, gone out of order. THE opposite party also filed no fault history and FNMR. THE idea was to show that the calling pattern during the period in question i.e. April to November, 1993 was broadly the same, as the pattern proceeding that period. It was also added that during June/ July, 93 there were heavy pre-monsoon rains resulting in cable fault adversely effecting about 20,000 telephone subscribers. Again on 7.7.93, there was an un-usual down-pour as a result of which there was water logging for a long period in different areas disrupting about 40,000 telephones. It was, in these circumstances, that there was difficulty in putting back the entire system on normal lines. On a consideration of the matter District Forum-II held that this was a case of deficiency in service and accordingly, directed the opposite party to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- and not to claim rental for the period the telephone remained out of order. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

We have heard Mr. S. Pattjoshi, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.N. Kohli, respondent in person.

AS noted in the impugned order, the complainant averred as many as 32 complaints lodged by him on telephone No. 198 as per details given in the order of the District Forum. The complainant also visited the office of the opposite party personally on 6.8.93 to lodge a complaint in writing. He also lodged a complaint with G.M. (S) on the basis of an advertisement appearing in the Hindustan Times dated 26.6.93. This was in addition to 9 letters written by the complainant of which copies had been filed with the rejoinder before the District Forum. The complainant had also visited various officers of the opposite party as per details given in the impugned order. Unless there are circumstances to the contrary a person would not normally write imaginary letters or lodge unnecessary complaints. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that the telephone remained out of order. The period calculated by the complainant and given to us at the time of hearing worked out to 108 days out of 198 days from 21.4.93 to 4.11.93. We find ourselves in entire agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the District Forum and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal as being without merit. A copy of this order be conveyed to both the parties as well as District Forum-II. Appeal dismissed.