TELEPHONES vs VIJAY KUMAR

-THIS appeal has been heard ex parte as the respondent did not appear in spite of the notice. O.P.-appellant has preferred the appeal against the order dated 11.6.2003 passed by District Forum, Motihari in Complaint Case No. 32/2002 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been directed to remove the cable fault of the complainant and not to charge rental for the period the telephone line remained out of order and further allowed Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for deficiency on the part of the appellant.

THE brief fact of the case is that complainant is a subscriber of Telephone No. 27690 at Motihari. This phone remained non-functional for many dates and after repeated requests the defects were not removed permanently. THEre were no telephone dues against him. He has paid the current and the arrears of the telephone bills but in spite of that his line was disconnected and when he produced the relevant papers showing the payment he was directed to deposit restoration fee which was an illegal demand. Having failed to convince the Telephone Department, the complainant filed the case before the District Forum claiming Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. The O.P.-Telephone Department appeared and filed written statement stating that there was only one complaint received with regard to the above telephone and the defect was removed at the earliest under the order of S.D.O. (P). The admitted fact that telephone line was disconnection due to non-payment of dues within the stipulated period. As per rule payment made after the period will not exonerate the consumer in paying the disconnection charge in spite of repeated demand the complainant failed to deposit the disconnection charge, therefore, his line was not restored. As such, there was no deficiency on the part of the Telephone Department. It was also a case of the O.P. that telephone becomes non-operational because of many factors such as cable fault or fault in the exchange and when the complaint is received the defects are removed as soon as possible. In the instant case the complainant has been able to show that only once he had made complaint with regard to the fault in his telephone and that was removed, therefore, the finding arrived at by the District Forum with regard to the deficiency on the part of the Telephone Department is not based on the materials available on record.

We have perused the impugned order where it is mentioned that bill dated 6.10.2001 was paid by the complainant on 6.11.2001 but in spite of that his line was disconnected and it was not restored in spite of showing the payment receipt. In the impugned order it is mentioned that O.P.-Telephone Department has produced the complaint register where it is mentioned that on 14.9.2001 the complaint was lodged with regard to fault in his telephone. After investigation it was found that it was due to cable fault. It is known fact that to remove the cable fault some time is consumed, therefore, after removing the cable fault the line was restored but subsequently it was disconnected because of non-payment and it was not restored because restoration charge was not paid. It was also contended on behalf of the appellant during course of argument before us that from the bill dated 1.4.2002 it is clear that department has ordered for restoration of the telephone connection and this was complied with at the earliest. This fact is not in dispute that telephone connection of the complainant remained out of order for long and as per Telephone Department it was due to cable fault. As per departmental rules applicable to the citizen and consumer if any telephone remained out of order for a week and more the rental for that period shall not be charged and it shall be deducted from the bill. Therefore, this part of the order of the District Forum is in accordance with the rules of the Telephone Department. However, we are of the view that complainant has not been able to make out a case of deficiency on the part of the appellant-Telephone Department, therefore, the award of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- is not justified, which is accordingly set aside.

IN the fact and circumstances, we direct the Telephone Department that in the subsequent bill sent to the complainant-respondent the rental charge shall be deducted for the period during which admittedly the telephone of the complainant was out of order but Telephone Department is not liable to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. In the result, with this modification in the impugned order the appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.