NARAYAN SINGH CHANDRAKAR vs DURG TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT

BY impugned order dated 14.5.2002 in Complaint No. 6/02 the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short), dismissed the complaint of the appellant. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the said order.

THE grievance of the complainant/appellant as averred in the complaint is that his telephone remained frequently out of order, as has been detailed by him in his complaint. It was averred that due to long spells of fault as above, the complainant is entitled to refund of the rental charges realised by the respondent telephone department. THE complaint was resisted by the respondent/department. According to them the complaints of the complainant were duly attended to promptly and defects were rectified in reasonable time. The District Forum, in the impugned order, relied upon the notings in the subscriber card of the complainant as well as fault record, maintained by the respondent department, and it was found that there was no deficiency in service. Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

The learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant submitted that he has been frequently reporting that his telephone was out of order which was recorded as dead, as would also be clear from the subscriber card dated 30.1.2002 placed on record of the District Forum. It was also submitted that he had submitted several applications copies of which have been placed on record of the District Forum from which it would be clear that he has been complaining about the continuous fault in his telephone. It was submitted that none of the said applications were replied to, by the respondent/department. It was, therefore, submitted by the complainant that in view of deficiency in service by the respondents, the complainant was entitled to refund of rental charges realised from the complainant/appellant by the respondent/department.

AFTER hearing Counsel and perusal of the records, it appears that the subscriber card notings indicate that there were several complaints by the complainant/appellant reporting non-functioning of the telephone which has been recorded as ''dead''. To take an instance, in the month of June, there were 5 such reports in short intervals. Besides the above, there are several applications submitted by the complainant to the respondent complaining about the non-functioning of the telephone for a considerable period. Thus complaints as above have been repeatedly made by the complainant. It does not appear that respondent replied to any of the said complaints. As per the stand of the respondent, the faults were duly attended to and rectified within a short period of 2 or 3 days. But the fact remains that the telephone of the complainant frequently remained out of order. The consumer is entitled to get telephone service, without unreasonable interruption. The type of service as was being given to him by the respondent certainly was unsatisfactory. Still the complainant/appellant was made to pay the rental charges when his telephone was actually not functioning for considerable period during the month. However, it is difficult to ascertain the specified duration during which telephone remained out of order. In the circumstances, in view of the material placed on record and the nature and extent of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/department, we consider it just and proper to allow the complaint and award a token compensation of Rs. 700/- to the complainant/appellant.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal and the complaint is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent/department is directed to pay to the appellant, a sum of Rs. 700/- (Rupees seven hundred) only. The said amount shall be payable within 2 months failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of default. Cost of this litigation shall also be payable by the respondent to the complainant which is quantified at Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only. Appeal allowed with costs.