Union of India vs SUDHA RANI PANDEY

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.11.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No. 271 of 1999. The facts of the case are as follows.

THE complainant Smt. Sudha Rani Pandey, r/o Panki Power House Colony, Panki, Kanpur had installed a telephone connection in her house bearing No. 216367 in April, 1992. She has been prompt in paying the bills charged by the opposite party. THE telephone in question went out of order in January, 1996 against which a complaint was made on 28.1.1996 but no action was taken by the opposite party. Complaints were again made on 11.2.1996 and 20.6.1996 but to no effect. THE complainant had alleged that due to telephone having gone out of order from 28.1.1996, she had to take telephone on rent with effect from 1.2.1996 for which a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- was being paid. By this act of the opposite party she has been put to physical, mental and financial harrassment. A claim was lodged with the District Consumer Forum by her praying for the removal of the defects of the telephone, compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of Rs. 200/-. An amount of Rs. 10/- per day was also claimed for the use of the telephone that has been taken on rent. The opposite party''s stand in the District Forum in the written version was that on receipt of the complaint the telephone was attended to and defects removed. On 28.5.1996 the complainant''s telephone was inspected by the lineman concerned who reported that the telephone was in working order. Fault card of the Department was an authentic document which clearly indicates that the fault was immediately attended to and there is no deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party.

The learned District Forum, after hearing both the parties, decreed the claim of the complainant. It had directed to the opposite party not to charge the rent from the complainant during the period from 28.1.1996 to 20.2.1996 when the telephone remained out of order. Compensation of Rs. 200/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 100/- was also awarded to the complainant. These amounts were to be adjusted against the future bills of the complainant.

AGGRIEVED with this order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party Telephone Department has come in appeal and has filed the appeal, challenging the order. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent was not present in person.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the period for which the telephone allegedly remained out of order was the one during which period the telephone was working and in proof of that the appellants have filed the bills of the telephone concerned. It was also argued that the Forum had no power to grant a rebate and in view of the report of the lineman and the fault card submitted before the Forum, defects in the telephone were immediately removed. On the other hand the opposite party/complainant has argued that the telephone remained out of order inspite of a number of complaints made and the bills submitted by the appellants do not give details of the date-wise calls and, therefore, they cannot be relied upon. We have also gone through the copies of documents placed on the appeal file and also copies of the papers which were filed before the District Forum. The complainant had made a complaint on 28.1.1996 (Sl. No. 854) but the defect was not removed. Again complaints were made on 13.2.1996 and 20.2.1996 (Complaint Nos. 21777 and 21740). This has not been rebutted by the appellant before the District Forum as well as before this Commission. There was no occasion for the complainants to have lodged any complaint in case the telephone has been set right on the basis of the complaint lodged on 28.1.1996. She was compelled to make complaints to the opposite party again on 13.2.1996 and 20.2.1996. The plea of the appellant is that the lineman on 28.5.1996 attended the telephone connection and submitted a report that the telephone in question has been set right. Even if this plea is accepted then it becomes clear that the department remained indifferent towards the complaint lodged by the complainant on 28.1.1996, 13.2.1996 and 20.2.1996. It has not been explained before the District Forum as to what happened to these complaints and, therefore, even if the telephone was attended to and the defects were removed in May, 1996, does not mean that there was no deficiency on the part of Telephone Department because the telephone remained out of order in January and February, 1996. Further a perusal of the copies of the telephone bills raised on the subscriber, who is the complainant, indicates that the amount levied on account of local charges, rent and service tax etc. is a consolidated one and no date-wise details have been provided so that any conclusion could be arrived to the fact that on the particular date from 28.1.1996 to 20.2.1996 calls were made. In the circumstances the case of the complainant is on the sound footing and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum need not be interfered. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of this appeal. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from today. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed with costs.