TELEPHONES Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal has been heard ex parte as the respondent did not appear in spite of the notice. O. P.-appellant has preferred the appeal against the order dated 11.6.2003 passed by District Forum, Motihari in Complaint Case No.32/2002 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been directed to remove the cable fault of the complainant and not to charge rental for the period the telephone line remained out of order and further allowed Rs.1,000/- as compensation for deficiency on the part of the appellant.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that complainant is a subscriber of Telephone No.27690 at Motihari. This phone remained non-functional for many dates and after repeated requests the defects were not removed permanently. There were no telephone dues against him. He has paid the current and the arrears of the telephone bills but in spite of that his line was disconnected and when he produced the relevant papers showing the payment he was directed to deposit restoration fee which was an illegal demand. Having failed to convince the Telephone Department, the complainant filed the case before the District Forum claiming Rs.25,000/- as compensation.

(3.) The O. P.-Telephone Department appeared and filed written statement stating that there was only one complaint received with regard to the above telephone and the defect was removed at the earliest under the order of S. D. O. (P ). The admitted fact that telephone line was disconnection due to non-payment of dues within the stipulated period. As per rule payment made after the period will not exonerate the consumer in paying the disconnection charge in spite of repeated demand the complainant failed to deposit the disconnection charge, therefore, his line was not restored. As such, there was no deficiency on the part of the Telephone Department. It was also a case of the O. P. that telephone becomes non-operational because of many factors such as cable fault or fault in the exchange and when the complaint is received the defects are removed as soon as possible. In the instant case the complainant has been able to show that only once he had made complaint with regard to the fault in his telephone and that was removed, therefore, the finding arrived at by the District Forum with regard to the deficiency on the part of the Telephone Department is not based on the materials available on record.