S.L.BHARGAVA vs DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,(PG)

THIS appeal has arisen out of order of District Forum-II dated 31.1.97. Mr. S.L. Bhargava, complainant for short, is subscriber of telephone No. 5711029. On 20.6.94 he lodged a complaint with the telephone exchange vide fault No. A-8 that rings were not ceasing in inward calls. The fault was attended to on 21.6.94. The lineman who came to remove the defect informed the complainant that the instrument was faulty and the same would be replaced the next day. The instrument was, however, not replaced and the complainant was obliged to make repeated complaint. In particular, he booked another complaint on 2.6.94 against complaint S-5. Thereafter, the complainant was informed that the defect was on account of breakdown of a cable. The said defect persisted obliging the complainant to book another complaint No. A-11 on 24.6.94. The complainant also contacted SDO (P) on 25.6.94 to be told that there was break-down of a cable and the repairs were in progress. On 27.6.94 the lineman came to check the telephone. He tried but could not contact the Exchange. On 28.6.94 the complainant again contacted the office of SDO and informed that the telephone was still defective. On 29.6.94, the complainant tried to contact SDO in person but could not do so and ultimately the telephone was set right only on 30.6.94.

ON a consideration of the matter the District Forum held that the defect appeared to be on account of fault developed by the cable. The lineman came to set right the fault on two occasions during the period in which the complaints had been made i.e. 21.6.94 to 30.6.94, the number of outgoing calls was higher than the calls registered during the proceeding two fortnights and one succeeding fortnight. For these reasons, it was concluded that the telephone was partially defective but as the defect was due to cable failure, there was no deficiency in service and the complaint was, accordingly, dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. We have heard the appellant and Mr. S. Patt Joshi, Advocate for MTNL and have carefully gone through the records. The contention of the appellant is that on a previous occasion his telephone remained defective from 18.8.92 to 28.8.92. He filed complaint No. 2360 with the District Forum and by order dated 16.9.93, the District Forum-lI awarded him compensation amounting to Rs. 500/- and rental rebate for the aforesaid period. He submitted that he would be satisfied if a similar order is passed in the present case. He has placed a copy of the order passed in the earlier case on the record.

The contention of Mr. S. Patt Joshi is that no complaint in writing has been placed on record. In reference to fault history duly maintained by MTNL shows that only one complaint was lodged on 20.6.94 which was attended to without any delay and in the absence of any other complaint there was no case made out for the grant of any compensation. Mr. Patt Joshi also submitted that the FNMR (Fortnight Meter Reading) placed on record shows that during the proceeding, two fortnights'' the number of calls registered were 25 and 10 respectively and for the fortnight succeeding the period in question the number was 9. As against the above during the period 14.6.94 to 30.6.94 the number of calls was 70. The contention is that if the telephone was faulty, it is difficult to explain how the number of calls went up instead of going down. Mr. Patt Joshi also submitted that if the complainant had personally gone to meet the SDO he should normally be in possession of a visitor''s pass which had not been produced, indicating that the complainant never personally went to meet the SDO.

THE complaint in the present case was not that the telephone was entirely dead. On the contrary, it was that there was disturbance in the incoming calls in that the ring did not cease making it difficult to listen to the incoming calls. This explains the figures appearing in the FNMR. It is not disputed that FNMR does not register incoming calls. THE appellant stated that between certain specified hours the subscribers were permitted to meet the officials of MTNL. In those days these hours were between 3 to 4 p.m. and no visitor''s pass was required. We have no reason to disbelieve the complainant that he lodged complaints on telephone on 20th, 22nd and 24th June''94. One of these complaints namely dated 20.6.94 is admitted by the respondent. With regard to the remaining two complaints, the complainant has given the number intimated to him by the official who received the complaint on telephone. THE department must be maintaining record of the complaints received on telephone. In order to rebut the case of the complainants, the telephone department was expected to produce that record. It has not been done so. We do not think that normally a person would lodge imaginary complaints and follow them up with a written complaint to the District Forum and keep pursuing the matter by an appeal before the Commission unless he was really harassed. It is well-known that the Forums in India are very conservative in the grant of compensation which in most cases is only a token amount. For these reasons, we accept the statements of the complainant made in his affidavit and find deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. We, accordingly, allow the complaint and direct the respondent to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 500/- besides rental rebate for the period 20.6.94 to 30.6.94. THE parties shall bear their respective costs. THE appeal is disposed of in these terms. A copy of the order be made available to the parties as well as District Forum-II. Appeal allowed. ______________