DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER MADRAS TELEPHONES Vs. AYISHA MOHIDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two opposite parties against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum, are the appellants.

(2.) The complainant is a subscriber to a phone. She failed to pay the amounts due under three bills dated 7.6.1990,7.8.1990 and 7.10.1990. Her telephone was therefore disconnected on 10.7.1990. Then subsequently on 9.9.1991 the complainant had paid the entire amount of Rs.1,834/- that was due under the said three bills and then she applied for re-connection of the telephone. The case of the complainant is that inspite of several letters written by her between 9.10.1991 and 23.6.1993 there was no response from the opposite parties officers of the Telephones Department. She also sent a registered notice dated 23.6.1993 to the opposite parties and to that they replied expressing their inability to give re-connection. Now the case of the complainant is that the said conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. On these grounds the complaint was filed.

(3.) The opposite parties contended that the amount due under the said three bills were paid only after a period of more than one year and therefore the telephone connection of the complainant had been treated as "permanently closed" and inspite of knowing that fact the complainant had vainly been making representations and therefore her request could not be acceded to. In these circumstances there was no deficiency in service on their part and hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed.