RACHPAL SINGH ARSHI vs G.M., TELECOMMUNICATIONS

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 18.9.1998 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called District Forum).

THE main grievance of the appellant/complainant before the District Forum was that his telephone No. 424022 installed at his residence had gone out of order w.e.f. 14.1.1998 and remained faulty for about 26 days due to which lot of inconvenience and mental torture as well as professional loss was caused to him. Admittedly, the appellant/complainant is an Advocate. It was further alleged in the complaint that he lodged the complaints with the telephone authority for correcting the default. In written reply filed to the complaint, it was admitted that the telephone had gone out of order on 14.1.1998 and on 8.2.1998 but the fault was rectified on 16.1.1998 and 10.2.1998 respectively. THE fault card showing the clear picture was also attached with the reply. It was denied in the reply that the telephone of the complainant remained dead/faulty for 26 days. Re-joinder was also filed by the complainant in which it was specifically stated that the telephone mostly remained faulty from 13.1.1998 upto 17.2.1998 which caused mental tension, inconvenience and professional loss to the complainant/appellant. THE District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant by holding as under : "We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. As per own complaint of the complainant, first complaint was lodged on 14.1.1998 at 198 bearing 186 and latest complaint was booked at No. 336 on 8.2.1998 and as per fault card the complaint entered at No. 186 was cleared on 16.1.1998 and another complaint booked on 8.2.1998 was cleared on 10.2.1998 without any delay and complainant is silent to the effect regarding any other complaint, oral or written and the complainant failed to prove that his telephone remained faulty for 26 days. Simply saying that the telephone remained faulty for 26 days is not enough. So, in view of the matter discussed above, the complaint is dismissed as same is devoid of any merit. Copy of this order be sent to the parties by registered post."

After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we find that the District Forum has not properly appreciated the facts on the record and has also not given cogent reason for dismissing the complaint.

A perusal of the fault card which is attached by the respondent/opposite party alongwith its reply gives entirely different picture. Fault card itself shows that initially fault was reported by the complainant to the opposite party on 13.1.1998. The complaint was handed over to the lineman on 14.1.1998 and the fault was rectified after 3 days i.e. on 16.1.1998. Again, telephone stopped working. The fault was reported to the opposite party on 19.1.1998 and the complaint was handed over to the lineman on 20.1.1998 and the fault was rectified after 5 days i.e. on 24.1.1998. Again, telephone became dead. Fault was reported on 30.1.1998; the complaint was handed over to lineman on 31.1.1998 and the fault was rectified after 5 days i.e. on 4.2.1998. Telephone was reported to be dead again on 5.2.1998 by the complainant. The complaint was handed over to the lineman on 6.2.1998 by the opposite party and the fault was rectified on 7.2.1998. On 8.2.1998, two complaints have been mentioned in the report card to have been reported which were handed over to lineman on 9.2.1998, one of which has been stated to be complied on 10.2.1998. Fault card further shows that telephone was reported to be dead again on 16.2.1998 and the defect is claimed to have been rectified on 17.2.1998. The fault card, thus clearly shows that within a short period of about one month i.e. from 13.1.1998 to 17.2.1998, the telephone remained dead for most of the time and the telephone became faulty for seven times which means that it remained out of order for most of the time within this short period. One can imagine the plight and the state of mind of a telephone subscriber who was compelled to complain to the telephone authorities not only once or twice but on several occasions for removing the defect in his telephone and still the end result was a dead telephone even after the complaint was lodged with the authorities for 3rd, 4th and 5th time. This conduct of the opposite party has certainly caused inconvenience, mental tension and professional loss to the appellant/complainant which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party.

IN these circumstances, we find no option except to accept the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. Resultantly, the order dated 18.9.1998 of the District Forum is set aside. The appeal is accepted with costs throughout which are quantified as Rs. 3,000/-. The respondent/opposite party shall also pay compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to the appellant/complainant for cause of mental tension, professional loss and inconvenience to the appellant/complainant. Appeal allowed.