K.E.MOSES vs M.T.N.L.

COMPLAINT of the appellant seeking compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him on account of having been supplied the defective telephone instrument which every time it was used it went out of order causing immense inconvenience and hardship was rejected vide impugned order dated 6th November, 2001 on the ground that whenever complaints were made these were attended to and the defects were rectified by the respondent and as such allegation of deficiency in service by the respondent is not justified.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has directed this appeal. The case of the appellant before the District Forum, in brief, was that his telephone instrument became faulty in December 1997 for which he lodged complaint with O.P. on 6.12.1997 and it was replaced on 9.12.1997. On 7.2.1998 his telephone became dead for which he reminded O.P. daily and on 3.3.1998 another Complaint No. 522 was lodged and his telephone was replaced on 7.3.1998, after one month, and it again became faulty and he lodged complaint on 11.3.1998. It was alleged that it was finally replaced by another defective instrument on 29.3.1998 which became dead on 30.3.1998 for which he lodged complaint on 6.4.1998 and again on 20.4.1998. He made written complaint and sent it on 14.5.1998, 3.7.1998, 31.7.1998 and 10.12.1998. It was alleged on 22.5.1998 defective instrument was replaced which however, had no outgoing ring or STD facility which was attended on 1.7.1998. As the telephone remained defective, complainant again lodged complaint on 8.12.1998 vide No. 1030 and his telephone was replaced on 10.12.1998. It was alleged that the said instrument was having no incoming ring facility for which he lodged complaint on 3.1.1999 and on 6.1.1999, thereafter on 24.1.1999 and 28.1.1999. A written complaint was given on 19.2.1999. Thereafter his telephone became dead on 28.10.1999. The complainant also alleged that his bills were excessive for which he complained to O.P. who gave stereo type reply on 7.7.2000.

As against these the stand taken by the respondent was that the appellant never made any complaint till 8th December, 1998 regarding the defect in the instrument and in fact the fault history from April 1997 to December 1999 clearly reveals that only on 8.12.1998 and 3.1.1999 the appellant filed complaint regarding the fault in the instrument, which was immediately on the next day itself of the complaint of the appellant were attended to and rectified.

IT is pertinent to mention here that the appellant is professionally an advocate and his version that the telephone developed defect every now and then is fortified with the circumstance that the telephone instrument having been replaced not once but more than five occasions. This solitary circumstance shows that either the instruments being supplied to him were defective or there was fault in the line which was not attended to. Even if we assume it to be correct that the respondent rectified the defect in respect of the complaint received on 8th December, 1998 and 3rd January, 1999 still the fact remains that large number of complaints were made to the respondent not only on telephone but also by way of written complaints on 7.4.1998 and 20.4.1998 and again on 14.5.1998, 3.7.1998, 31.7.1998 and 10.12.1998. It is not understandable as to on what premises the District Forum came to the conclusion that the instruments supplied by the respondent were neither defective nor were complaints made by the respondent baseless. No person would go on making complaints in writing if the telephone is working properly. It is only in compelling circumstances a consumer resort to making written complaints and complaints on telephone. The replacement of one telephone by another for five successions, manifestly demonstrates the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent which in terms of Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

IN view of the foregoing reasons we feel inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and award a compensation of Rs. 5,000 and cost of Rs. 2,000. We are granting compensation in respect of the fact that the appellant happens to be an advocate and if the telephone of an advocate for that purpose of any professional goes out of order he suffers not only mentally but also professionally as telephone in modern day life is a very powerful communicative vehicle without which life becomes stranded. It was because of such importance of the telephone that the cellular telephones have mushroomed in the market. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, be returned to the appellant after completion of due formalities.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be awarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal disposed of.