TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER Vs. BHAKTABANDHU DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant's phone No.481363 was disconnected on 29.8.1994 for non-payment of the dues. He paid the dues on 6.10.1994 and on 7.10.1994 the defective telephone line was reconnected. Again the phone gave trouble for which he lodged a complaint on 9.10.1994 and on 24.10.1994 a written complaint. The department did not take any action. The telephone remained dead from 9.10.1994 till 31.10.1994. For this inconvenience and deficiency in service he claimed Rs.15,000/- as compensation. The dpartment admitted that the service could not be provided during this period because a new telephone set was not available in the stock. They however admitted that the complaint dated 9.10.1994 by the complainant was attended to and the instrument was found to be defective. The telephone set could not be replaced for non-availability in the stock, but the same was replaced on 1.11.1994. It is further pleaded that for this period rebate was given for not providing the service.

(2.) We have heard the Counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the judgment and the materials on record.

(3.) The judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. The Forum has considered the case of the complainant that he being a person in legal profession suffered great inconvenience. In our view telephone service now-a-days has become a necessity for those carrying on business. Therefore, the Forum has rightly assessed, rather moderately the compensation of Rs.1,500/- for the inconvenience caused for deficiency in service. Further, we find from the record that the department failed to prove that in fact there was no new telephone set available in the stock. This was a fact which needed to be proved. Mere pleading does not prove it. That apart there was no bar on the part of the department even to replace the phone, may not by another new telephone but with another serviceable telephone which could have solved the problem immediately. This also has not been done. We do not find any justification to interfere with the order. The appeal stands dismissed without any costs. The amount of compensation may be adjusted against any of the subsequent Bills.