GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, COIMBATORE TELEPHONES vs V.L.NARAYANAN

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 13.8.1997 in O.P. No. 609/94 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore. The appellant is the opposite party while the respondent is the complainant.

THE succinct facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action. The complainant is a subscriber of two telephones bearing Nos. 20325 and 20335. The telephone numbers were subsequently changed as 720325 and 720335. According to the complainant, the telephones were not properly functioning for longer period and despite complaints having been given to the opposite party, the defect or fault in the telephones were not at all rectified. This sort of an act on the part of the opposite party, the complainant would say, would tantamount to deficiency in service on their part

Alleging the factors as above, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

THE opposite party in pith and substance would contend that there was no deficiency in service on their part. What they would further contend was of course there were certain faults or defects in the telephone remaining unrectified for certain periods and for the period during which the telephones were not functional, rental rebate had been granted as per rules. THE complaint, as such, is liable to be dismissed. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, ultimately came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and ultimately rendered the operative portion of the order in paragraph 7 as below : "7. In the result, this Forum doth order and direct that the opposite party should, within 15 days (fifteen days) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order set right the telephones of the complainant (i.e. Telephone No. 720325 and Telephone No. 720335 - Tirupur) and make them functional, if it had not been already done by him and should within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as costs in this complaint failing which suitable penal action will be taken against the opposite party as per provisions of law."

AGGRIEVED by the order as above the opposite party resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of its choice, namely learned Counsel Mr. S. Srinivasan. On service of process, the respondent/ complainant did not choose to enter appearance by engaging a Counsel of his choice and he virtually remained absent. The fact that he is absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits of course after hearing the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. Ramesh, representing learned Counsel Mr. S. Srinivasan, appearing for the appellant/opposite party and on perusal of the records. That is exactly what we have done in the instant case. Even at the outset, we may point out that there are absolutely no merits to interfere with the order of the Forum below. It is not the case of the appellant/opposite party that the two telephones of the respondent/complainant were free from fault or defect. Even according to them, the said two telephones were not functional for certain periods and for the period during which the telephones were not functional, rebate as per the rules had been granted to the complainant. The fact that the opposite party Telephone Department paid rental rebate to the complainant for the period during which the telephones were not working will not relieve them of the liability for the deficiency in service on their part. If the telephone had become non-functional, it is incumbent upon the opposite party Telephone Department to rectify the detect in the telephone within a reasonable time, say, within a day or two. But, in this case, enormous delay has occurred in setting right the telephones of the respondent/complainant which could be seen from the order of the Forum below. Such being the case, the enormous delay caused in rectifying the defect of the telephones of the complainant would definitely tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Telephone Department. Because of the deficiency on the part of the opposite party, Telephone Department, it is pretty certain that the complainant, a businessman ought to have undergone the mental agony and anguish for which the opposite party is required to compensate him by payment of a reasonable sum. The Forum below after all awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by way of compensation for such mental agony and anguish suffered by the complainant. The amount so awarded, we rather feel is reasonable, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, not calling for interference. We, therefore, confirm such portion of the award. The Forum below also awarded cost in a sum of Rs. 500/- which we feel is also reasonable not calling for interference. We also confirm this part of the award. As such the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

IN fine the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We shall however make it crystal clear that the order of the Forum below as confirmed by us is required to be complied with within a month from the date of receipt of our order or otherwise the complainant will be at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeal dismissed.