TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, DEPT. OF TELECOMMUNICATION Vs. RAMANUJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party in C.O.P. No. 97/96 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore is the appellant herein. The respondent herein filed the complaint in respect of his telephone TTY No. 48236 at Akkadavalli alleging that it had not been functioning for more than two years prior to the complaint, that despite repeated complaints given, the complainant received phone bills, that he caused a registered letter to be issued to the appellant, that the appellant issued a reply stating that the complaint was registered for investigation, that, however, there was no further response and he continued to receive the phone bills for subsequent period, that he had another phone connection No. 32 at Thiruthuraiyur at his business place, that the said telephone connection was cut off. The balance deposit amount of Rs. 375 was not given to him for over 2 years, that there was continuous deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, that an Advocate notice dated 2.2.1996 was issued to the opposite party to which there was no reply and in such circumstances the complaint came to be filed for restoration of phone connection TTY No. 48236 and for cancellation of the telephone bills for the period during which the phone was not functioning and directing the opposite party/appellant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 375 with 18% interest from the date of disconnecting TTYR 32 at Thiruthuraiyur, till date of payment and for payment of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for pain and suffering.

(2.) THE appellant resisted the claim contending as follows: It was not true to say that the telephone was not working for the past 2 years. The complainant was not using the telephone even for barest minimum. Not only the complainant but majority of subscribers parented to TTYR Exchange is not using the telephone even upto the allowed minimum free calls. The total calls for 2 months on many occasions were around 5000 for the entire TTYR Exchange. Further the complainant's premises was always kept locked and he was not utilising the phone as he was always out of station. The complainant was issued bills dated 21.5.1995, 27.7.1995, 21.9.1995 for Rs. 115 each which covered only for the rent. The bill dated 1.12.1995 for Rs. 398 was not paid by him. Therefore, invoking Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, the telephone was disconnected on 29.1.1996. There were one or two faults during the entire period covering the year 1995 and 1996. On one occasion when the complainant reported of a fault in his telephone, the field staff, phone inspector and lineman were deputed for checking the lines and equipments. It was reported that the telephone was working all right till the window point and could hear the ringing of the telephone inside the house, that Akkadavalli 236 could be reconnected, after adopting usual formalities if the complainant cleared all the dues. There was no balance amount lying in the deposit of the complainant in respect of his other telephone TTYR 32. The complainant was not entitled to any relief. The disconnection was legal and lawful. In any event, the complainant ought to have resorted to Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act for appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the dispute if any. There was no document in support of the complainant's claim.

(3.) PROOF affidavits were filed and Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 were marked on the side of the complainant and none on the side of the opposite party.