CHENNAI TELEPHONES Vs. Y M HATHIWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party in O. P. No.121/98 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant. The respondent herein filed the complaint alleging that his telephone was not working for the period from 18.2.1995 to 24.2.1995, that application for shifting the telephone was not attended to within a reasonable time, that the Department took more than three months for shifting the telephone from one place to another within the same telephone exchange and these things amounted to deficiency in service. The compensation claimed was Rs.50,000.

(2.) The opposite party/appellant resisted the complaint stating that the application was processed and the line was disconnected on 2.2.1995 as per the request of the complainant that even though the shift was within the same exchange area, the work could not be completed for want of cable pairs, that as and when the cable pairs were strengthened at the new area, the line was put through on 22.4.1995, that the opposite party allowed rental rebate for the non-working period from 18.2.1995 to 21.4.1995 and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

(3.) On the side of the complainant, Ex. A1 series were marked. There were no documents filed on the side of the opposite party/appellant.