K N PARTHASARATHY Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELEPHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE do not find any merit in this appeal. The complainant who shifted his residence applied to the opposite party namely the appellant herein for the shifting of the telephone installed in his old residence and the application was made on 29.1.1998. The opposite party took their own time which is about 10 months for taking action on that application and the shifting was effected finally on 10.12.1998 and that too after the filing of the complaint. The complaint was filed on 27.8.1998. Apparently after receipt of notice from the Forum they have chosen to jump into action to effect the shifting. We do not find any acceptable reasons stated by the opposite parties in the counter nor they have produced any documentary evidence to show that they really took earnest steps but for reasons beyond their control the shifting could not be effected. On the other hand, we find from Ex. A11 a telephone bill relating to a phone installed in Door No.762, 29th Street, Korattur, Chennai, which is the neighbouring building of the complainant that the said telephone was installed on 28.7.1998. Therefore, the contention of the opposite party for want of spare cable pair they could not effect the shifting stands belied by the above fact. When they could instal a telephone in the neighbouring house on 28.7.1998, why is it that no attempt was made to shift the telephone of the complainant on the same day itself or immediately thereafter. There is no explanation forthcoming. Therefore, in such circumstances, the lower Forum thought it a fit case to direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/ - with a cost of Rs.500/ - which order we find is quite reasonable and proper in the circumstances.

(2.) THE National Commission has held in the decision reported in 1986 -2002 National Commission and Supreme Court on Consumer Cases (Part IV) page 5753, that delay caused in the shifting of phone would amount to deficiency in service and such loss cannot be measured in terms of money and the awarding of a token compensation is just and proper.

(3.) TO the same effect is the decision reported in 2002 (3) CPR 242, by the National Commission where the delay of three months in installation of telephone by shifting was held to be deficiency in service and the complainant was held to be entitled to compensation.