MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. VINOD V KARKARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Bombay dated 6.7.1990 directing the appellant to put the telephone of respondent in working condition within 15 days with order to pay the compensation of Rs.6,600/- to the complainant. The appellant has been further directed to give rebate to the complainant for the period between 1.3.89 to 28.2.90.

(2.) The necessary facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having telephone No.5513293. The complainant has been using the aforesaid telephone from 23.12.88. The complainant alleged that the telephone was dead for six month is off and on. He had written several letters to the various offices of the appellant but they were not replied. Even for die claim of rebate, an application was required to be made. According to the complainant die appellant completely ignored the grievance made out by the complainant and thus mere was 'deficiency' in the service of the appellant The appellant also claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs.16,000/-.

(3.) A notice u/s.13 of the Consumer Protection Act was issued on 23.3.1990 which was received by the appellant on 26.3.1990. Inspite of the clear cut direction from the District Forum, to file reply in answer to the allegations contained in the complaint within 30 days time, the appellant chose to remain silent for a considerable period of three months. Appellant filed reply on 26.6.1990. Nothing was placed on record by the appellant except the reply. In the reply the appellant contended that the telephone No.5513293 in question was kept under special rack as the premises was closed on 2.12.89 at 18.30 hrs. According to the appellant, the line was continuously working with no more interruption from 1.3.1989 to 1.3.1990. Further it was submitted that the reading has been recorded during the period 20.2.89 till 25.5.90 which corroborates the aforesaid facts. On 29.6.1990, the appellant was directed to produce all dockets of the complainant showing the meter reading. It is seen from the record that the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. did not place those dockets and other documents before the District Forum to show reading of the meter to establish the telephone in working condition. In absence of the said dockets and the records, the learned District Forum held that the complainant has proved his allegations and therefore, passed the impugned order.