LAWS(TNCDRC)-2004-2-2

TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRICHY Vs. P R G RAMALINGAM

Decided On February 20, 2004
Telecommunications, Trichy Appellant
V/S
P R G Ramalingam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant laid a complaint alleging as follows: The complainant is a subscriber of a telephone bearing No. 82275. The instrument has been dead from 11.10.1997. Several representations were made but it was not restored. The complainant sent letters to the Sub -Divisional Office, Karur and also to various authorities by registered post. There was no response. On account of the non -functioning of the telephone, the complainant is put to great loss and mental agony. The opposite party is negligent in not restoring the telephone. There is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant prays for damages of Rs. 50,000/ - and for a direction to the opposite party to restore the telephone and give rental rebate and also pay the damages.

(2.) THE opposite party filed their version pleading as follows: The allegations made in the complaint are not admitted. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The area through which the telephone line passes is covered by dense and throny bushes and trees. The same could not be removed due to serious objections raised by the land owners. The telephone wires passing through that area and as its consequence would result in damages leading to disrupting of telephone connection. However, the faults on complaints were attended to then and there by the opposite party. There were complaints from other subscribers who were also localised in that area and the thorny vegetation was removed and the phones were functioning properly. During the period alleged in the complaint the telephone was working and calls emanated from the telephone of the complainant vide the following readings. Date OMR 7.11.1997 1788 15.11.1997 1789 15.1.1997 1792 15.3.1998 1793 15.5.1998 1795 8.6.1998 1823

(3.) THE lower Forum held that there was deficiency in service and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,000/ - along with a cost of Rs. 300/ -. The other reliefs asked for were turned down.