LAWS(NCD)-2005-11-138

K E MOSES Vs. M T N L

Decided On November 29, 2005
K E Moses Appellant
V/S
M T N L Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint of the appellant seeking compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him on account of having been supplied the defective telephone instrument which every time it was used it went out of order causing immense inconvenience and hardship was rejected vide impugned order dated 6th November, 2001 on the ground that whenever complaints were made these were attended to and the defects were rectified by the respondent and as such allegation of deficiency in service by the respondent is not justified.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has directed this appeal.

(3.) The case of the appellant before the District Forum, in brief, was that his telephone instrument became faulty in December 1997 for which he lodged complaint with O. P. on 6.12.1997 and it was replaced on 9.12.1997. On 7.2.1998 his telephone became dead for which he reminded O. P. daily and on 3.3.1998 another Complaint No.522 was lodged and his telephone was replaced on 7.3.1998, after one month, and it again became faulty and he lodged complaint on 11.3.1998. It was alleged that it was finally replaced by another defective instrument on 29.3.1998 which became dead on 30.3.1998 for which he lodged complaint on 6.4.1998 and again on 20.4.1998. He made written complaint and sent it on 14.5.1998, 3.7.1998, 31.7.1998 and 10.12.1998. It was alleged on 22.5.1998 defective instrument was replaced which however, had no outgoing ring or STD facility which was attended on 1.7.1998. As the telephone remained defective, complainant again lodged complaint on 8.12.1998 vide No.1030 and his telephone was replaced on 10.12.1998. It was alleged that the said instrument was having no incoming ring facility for which he lodged complaint on 3.1.1999 and on 6.1.1999, thereafter on 24.1.1999 and 28.1.1999. A written complaint was given on 19.2.1999. Thereafter his telephone became dead on 28.10.1999. The complainant also alleged that his bills were excessive for which he complained to O. P. who gave stereo type reply on 7.7.2000.