MADRAS TELEPHONES vs S.Govindan

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 12.11.1996 in O.P. 753/95 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South).

THE appellant is the opposite party while the respondent is the complainant. The complainant is a subscriber of a telephone bearing No. 840407. The said telephone went out of order on and from 8.6.1995. A complaint, it appears, had been immediately lodged. A member of the staff from the opposite party, Chennai Telephones, it appears, visited the premises of the complainant on 18.6.1995. The visit so made proved futile and the defect in the telephone was not at all rectified. The non- functioning of the telephone continued for pretty long and the complainant made a written complaint on 17.7.1995 to the Deputy General Manager and others. There was no response to the complaint so made and the telephone continued to be non-functioning. The telephone however was ultimately rectified after a long delay. As a consequence of non-functioning of the telephone for pretty long, the complainant would say, he suffered mental agony and anguish and loss in his textile business.

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, Chennai Telephones, in pith and substance would contend that the telephone of the complainant, subscriber, of course, went out of order on 8.6.1995. A complaint, in fact, was registered on the very same day. THE fault was entrusted to the line staff. THE line staff could not rectify the fault and they reported that the defect in the telephone was due to cable fault. Consequently, the rectification of the defect in the said telephone was entrusted to the cable party on 12.6.1995. THE cable party also made efforts to rectify the telephone by opening pits on 12.6.1995 and on subsequent days. THEy however could not locate the fault. The opposite party entered into correspondence with the Corporation of Madras for digging of pits and open the road to rectify the defects. They could not get the permission of the Corporation for pretty long. Some how or other, they were able to locate the fault by digging up pit in the road after getting the necessary permission on 31.7.1995. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the opposite party would say that there was deficiency in service on their part. The said telephone was also given rental rebate for the period for which the telephone was not working in the premises of the complainant. The complaint, as such, is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record however came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and ultimately directed them to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation for the mental agony and anguish suffered by him and a cost of Rs. 500/- to be paid by them to him. THE Forum below granted time of one month from the date of the order for its compliance. Aggrieved by the order as above, the opposite party Chennai Telephones resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice, namely learned Counsel Mr. S. Thiagarajan. On service of process, the respondent/ complainant remained virtually absent.

WHEN the matter came up for hearing before us today, the respondent/complainant is not present in Court to project his hues of views. The fact that he is not present in Court does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits, of course, after hearing learned Counsel Mr. S. Thiagarajan, appearing for the appellant/ opposite party and on perusal of the material placed on record. That is exactly what we have done in this case.

THERE is no pale of controversy that the telephone of the complainant went out of order on 8.6.1995 and the defect in the telephone was set right after a delay of 53 days, i.e. to say on 31.7.1995. The opposite party, Chennai Telephones, would take up the stand that they tried their level best to restore the telephone by registering the complaint on 8.6.1995 itself and entrusting the job firstly to the line staff and then to the cable staff and despite such efforts having been taken, they were unable to rectify the telephone inasmuch as they were unable to get the necessary and requisite permission from the Chennai Corporation to dig up the road in order to set right the cable fault. The explanation so offered looks credible on the face of it. But, a little bit of a probe if made into such explanation, the utter untenability taking shelter thereunder would get exposed. If really, the opposite party, Chennai Telephones, had taken steps in having correspondence with the Chennai Corporation, for digging up pits in the road, naturally, it would have been possible for them to have marked the correspondence they had with the Chennai Corporation which necessitated the delay in setting right the telephone. Not even a single correspondence had been placed on record. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the explanation so offered cannot be anyone other than an explanation for explanation sake and nothing further. THEREfore, cocksure, it is that there is an inordinate delay in setting right the telephone of the complainant and such inordinate delay would definitely tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, Chennai Telephones. The finding so recorded by the Forum below, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable in law. The Forum below, of course, granted compensation quantified in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant for the mental agony and anguish besides business loss he had suffered. Learned Counsel Mr. S. Thiagarajan, appearing for the appellant, of course, would make a submission that the award of compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as granted by the Forum below, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, rather appears to be excessive calling for reduction in a reasonable amount when especially, the opposite party Chennai Telephones had granted the rental rebate for the said telephone for the period during which the telephone was not functioning. The argument so projected by the said learned Counsel deserves some consideration. We are of the view that in such circumstances the compensation awarded by the Forum below rather appears to be excessive calling for reduction in a reasonable amount. We rather feel that compensation quantified in a. sum of Rs. 2,000/-, if ordered to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant for the mental agony, anguish and business loss he had suffered, it won''t be besides justice. We, therefore, reduce the compensation amount payable by the opposite party to Rs. 2,000/-. The Forum below awarded cost in a sum of Rs. 500/- which we feel, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is rather reasonable, not calling for interference.

In fine, the order of the Forum below is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is thus disposed of. We shall however order no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We make it clear that the order of the Forum below as modified 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 disposed of.