JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, TELECOMMUNICATION vs K.Venugopal

THE opposite party in O.P. No. 625/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikkode is the appellant. THE complainant alleged before the District Forum that he is the consumer of telephone No. 630271, that the telephone become faulty from 16.8.1998 onwards and though he made a complaint on 17.8.1998 till the date defect is not rectified. He alleged, because of the defect of the telephone he had to incur loss apart from suffering mental agony; and consequently he wanted direction for compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. THE opposite party in their version maintained, that during the last week of June due to heavy rain and lightning the line contractor system was charred, major fault developed and the telephone system became faulty from 26.6.1998 onwards. THEy had taken steps for rectifying the instrument by the manufacturer and got it repaired on 25.7.1998. THEy maintained, that on 16.8.1998 the unit become faulty due to lightning as soon as the fault was detected, the engineer inspected the same and he found that the only way to give service to the complainant was to repair the unit. Immediate replacement was not possible since there was no spare unit. Later connection was restored on 17.10.1998. THEy maintained that there was no deficiency of service as alleged and hence wanted dismissal of the complaint. THE complainant produced Ext. P1. On the basis of the pleading as well as Ext. P1, the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as compensation with interest and also Rs. 300/- as costs. THE said direction is under challenge in this appeal.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant maintained that the very observation in the impugned order that the telephone was rectified only on 8.12.1998 was not even pleaded by the complainant and that as a matter of fact the defect was rectified on 17.10.1998 and till then they could not rectify the telephone because of reasons stated in the version. Consequently according to the learned Counsel the finding of deficiency of service and consequential award of compensation cannot be supported. As per the allegation in the complaint the telephone was defective on the date of filing of the complaint, that is on 9.11.1998. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent it was pending complaint that the defect was rectified and that was on 8.12.1998. What is to be looked into is, whether as per the admitted case there could be deficiency of service. We have adverted to the plea raised in the version filed by the opposite party. The version states that the defect occurred because of lightning on 16.8.1998 that the engineer on examination found that the only way to restore service was by replacement of the unit and the said unit was immediately not available. The fact that the telephone became defective on 16.8.1998 is admitted; and if the opposite party is to be believed it was rectified only on 17.10.1998. They took about two months to restore service. When the delay is so much certainly the opposite party was bound to show, inspite of their best efforts the connection could not be restored. One important aspect to be noted in this connection is, with due regard to the nature of the defence taken as to the cause of the defect as well as the measure to be taken to rectify the same, it is clear that the opposite parties should be in possession of material to show as to the nature of the defect as well as the steps taken to rectify the same. If as a matter of fact there was shortage of the unit to be replaced as is contended, again as regards the same also the opposite party should be in possession of the material to show the same. Nothing was produced. Ext. P1 bill produced by the complainant states that for the period between 16.8.1998 to 15.10.1998 there was 25 calls, whereas, as has already noted, even according to the opposite party''s case the telephone was defective from 16.8.1998 to 17.10.1998. There is no explanation as to how the 25 calls happened to be recorded in such circumstances. What is to be noted is, the opposite parties could not show by acceptable material that inspite of their best effort they could not rectify the defect for two months. This would constitute deficiency of service when even as per the defence of the opposite party the phone was defective from 16.8.1998 to 17.10.1998. The finding of the District Forum thus cannot be called in question. The compensation awarded also cannot be said to be on the higher side. We see no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.