ENNOR INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED Vs. MADRAS TELEPHONES (NORTH)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint is with reference to a telephone. The opposite parties admit the complainant s case. They admit that the complaint was received on 7.11.1997 and the telephone was set right on 3.1.1998. They also admit that another cable fault was reported on 20.1.1998 and it was cleared on 28.1.1998. They again admit that another cable fault occurred on 2.2.1998 and it could be attended on 23.2.1998. Thus, they admit that the telephone was not functioning for certain spells and complaints were made by the complainant and they deputed their persons and set right the same. They further state that as new optical fibre cable laying programme by the department was in progress in that area, the existing cables in that area were damaged at multiple points and, therefore, the service to the complainant s telephone could not be restored immediately and only later they traced out the cable fault and attended to it. Further, according to them, as it was a rainy season on account of the heavy rain and seepage of water in the locality, there was a delay in the clearing of cable fault and thus they contend that all the three occasions when the complainant made complaints, they made sincere attempts to rectify the defects which was caused due to damage to the cable at various points and that for the period during which the telephone did not function, they have given sufficient rental rebate. Thus, according to them for the non -working of the telephone from 7.11.1997 to 2.1.1998 and from 20.1.1998 to 27.1.1998 and from 2.2.1998 to 22.2.1998, due rental rebate was granted and thus there is no deficiency in service.

(2.) IT is no doubt true that the opposite parties have attended to the defects. But, from their own statement, it is clear that the complaints of faults were not attended to immediately but the Department took its own time to attend to the same. Of course, the opposite parties would cite so many reasons for the recurring of the defect but when the opposite parties are providing a service and when they charge the public for the said service, it is incumbent upon them to provide the best service. It is not open to them to cite various reasons and to escape from their liability. They ought to ensure that the defects if any reported, are attended to immediately. They cannot take their own time to attend to it. Even assuming that on account of the laying of fibre glass or on account of the rainy season the defects have occurred and they could not attend to it immediately that cannot simply absolve them of their liability. They ought to have foreseen the occurrence of such damages. It is their duty to maintain the cable lines properly by supervising it periodically. Had they supervised it periodically and maintained it regularly, such defects would not have occurred. Therefore, the very nature of the defects would show that they have not taken proper care and that they have failed to make periodical check up. Thus, it is clear that there has been deficiency in service.

(3.) IT is now stated that the complainant surrendered the phone. But, anyhow from the facts admitted, it is obvious that there has been deficiency in service. The complainant is not in a position to sustain how he is entitled to the amounts claimed. He has claimed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/ - towards loss of business and reputation. He has also claimed towards calls made from public booths. He had claimed compensation for mental agony and loss. Though the compensation is claimed under several heads, the complainant has not chosen to provide any materials to show that there was any loss of business much less to the extent of Rs. 4,50,000/ -. It is also strange to say that his reputation was lost. There is also nothing to show that any additional expenses were incurred by him in making calls. If really, he had made calls from outside, he could have produced those bills. Therefore, in such circumstances, though the complainant has made a huge claim, he has failed to substantiate the same. But, taking into account that there has been deficiency in service and some sort of hardship could have been caused to the complainants because of the non -working of the phone, in the circumstances, we hold that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - would meet the ends of justice.