DISTRICT TELECOMMUNICATION MANAGER vs A.C.DHARMARAJ

THE complainant approached the District Forum with the following prayers: (1) Immediate fault repair of his phone which was not functioning from 11.3.1996; (2) Regular visit of maintenance staff to maintain the constant working of phone; (3) Waiving the rent for the month of March, 1996; and (4) Supply of the latest telephone directory replacing the present 1993 directory.

THE District Forum after hearing the parties has passed the following order: (1) that the opposite party shall ensure that the telephone line and junction boxes are maintained properly so that the phone of the complainant is functioning properly; (2) that the opposite party shall pay Rs. 500/- to the complainant as compensation and give rebate in the rent for the period from 12.3.1996 to 26.3.1996. (3) that the opposite party shall pay Rs. 100/- towards cost. THE amount be paid within a month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12% p.a.

The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there was no justification for compensation as there was no deficiency. The case of the Department is that the non-functioning of the telephone was reported on 12.3.1996 and a formal complaint was lodged on 12.3.1996 under Complaint No. J 208, that it was found that the non-functioning of the phone was due to a fault of wire break due to break in the insulation drop wire, and that the telephone was restored on 26.3.1996.

The fact that a subscriber was left without telephone facilities for no fault of his from 11.3.1996 to 26.3.1996 is obviously a deficiency in service. The department should have shown that such a long time was absolutely necessary for restoring the telephone. This was not done. Therefore, this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is not acceptable and this is a clear case of deficiency of service.

THE next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there was no prayer for compensation and that the District Forum ought not to have granted any compensation. We have perused the complaint and in fact we find that the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is absolutely correct. THErefore, the part of the order of the District Forum ordering compensation is untenable. We also find at the same time that the District Forum has not dealt with one of the prayers of the complainant viz., replacing the obsolete 1993 directory. This is also a clear instance of deficiency in service. This is taken note of by the learned Counsel for the appellant who also undertakes to supply within 15 days from today the latest telephone directory to the complainant.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The portion of the order of the District Forum directing payment of compensation is deleted. The undertaking of the department to supply latest telephone directory is recorded. No cost. Appeal allowed.