- (1.) ALLEGING that the telephone installed in the complainant's house with the indicator No. 8257208 was not functioning from the second week of February, 1997 and that a complaint was made to the opposite parties on 15.2.1997 and that no action was taken in spite of the same and that the complainant, therefore, issued a lawyer's notice on 10.3.1997 calling upon the opposite party to restore the line and that reminders were also sent by the complainant to rectify the defects and that the opposite parties have been indifferent and negligent and that as result the consumer namely the complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony and loss and, therefore, the complaint is laid for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - as damages for the period from 18.2.1997 till the date of restoration and a cost of Rs. 3,000/ -.
(2.) THE opposite parties namely the Telephone Department contended that there was no fault in the telephone as contended by the complainant and that the complaint was received in the month of February, 1997 and the same was rectified then and there. After that there was no other complaint. While on inspection, the department people checked all the line and apparatus and found to be in good condition upto the departmental wiring and the fault was only in the concealed wiring carried out by the subscriber himself which could not be attended to by the departmental staff and this fact was also intimated to the complainant and that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the Department.
(3.) THE lower Forum did not accept the contentions of the opposite parties/appellants/Department and holding that there was deficiency in service inasmuch as there was avoidable delay in carrying out rectification, it directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - with a cost of Rs. 500/ -. Hence, the present Appeal. From the very records produced by the Department, we find that the complaint about the non -functioning of the telephone was made as early as 15.2.1997 and according to them it was attended to on 12.3.1997 only. This, itself, shows that there was huge delay in attending to the defects. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the defects lay only within the premises of the complainant namely in the concealed wiring installed by the complainant in his house and there was no defect in line upto that point and that the same was intimated to the complainant. This contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant overlooks certain important facts. If it was so, it is not known how in paragraph 5 of the version it is stated that the complaint was received only on two occasions in the month of February, 1997 and the same was rectified then and there. Therefore, this averment in the version cuts at the case of the appellant. Moreover, in the letter alleged to have been sent by the Department, we find what they have stated is that the line has been checked and found O.K. to the last point at the complainant's premises. It did not say that there was defect in the concealed wiring; on the other hand it did say as though till last point in the premises, it was checked and found to be in order. There is yet another circumstance to be noted here. This letter is dated 27.3.1997 and the same has been despatched by the Department only on 23.7.1997. This only shows how negligent, careless and indifferent the Department has been in dealing with the customers. It is also to be pointed out that the complaint has been lodged in the month of May, 1997. Therefore, the communication has been apparently sent after that. There is yet another glaring circumstance to show that the Department has been careless and negligent throughout. In reply to the complaint, they have filed their version in the Court, but the version does not contain either the signature of the Counsel or the signature of the officers of the Telecom Department. There are blanks. Thus, in such circumstances, we find that indifference and carelessness is rampant in this case. It is nearly after 4 months namely after the filing of the complaint only and when the matter was taken up for hearing, the defect has been made good and connection has been restored. This we find stated in the course of the order. Therefore, it follows that there has been a glaring and appalling deficiency in service in this case. Therefore, the lower Forum was right in awarding the compensation to the complainant. Consequently, we see no merits in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 250/ - confirming the order of the lower Forum.;