TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER Vs. SARBJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum, Ropar allowed the complaint of Sarbjit Singh, a telephone subscriber with the direction to the Telecom Department to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation and costs for delay in setting the telephone in order that the Telecom Department has come up in appeal.

(2.) As per findings recorded, the telephone remained out of order from November 5,1996 to November 26,1996 on account of underground cable fault. Since the complainant has not filed any appeal, such a finding is taken as correct. Even on behalf of the Telecom Department, there is no challenge to the aforesaid finding. Thus, it is not necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties wherein allegations are levelled that the telephone remained out of order for a period upto the time of filing of the complaint i. e. December 12, 1996.

(3.) The question debated by learned Counsel for the Telecom Department is that since it was underground cable fault, the same was set right within a reasonable period of about 15 days and hence it was not a case of any negligent act on the part of the Telecom Department that any compensation could be granted to the complainant under Sec.14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on some of the decisions already taken by this Commission. Appeal No.896 of 1996, JE, Telephone Exchange V/s. Rajinder Kumar, was decided on March 9, 1998. The telephone in that case went out of order on June 13,1996 and was set in order on July 22, 1996. The rectifier was damaged on account of lightening. Subsequently LC cord was also found to be defective. It was to be got repaired from Delhi. It was on those facts that it was found that there was no negligent act on the part of the Telephone Department in setting right the telephone. The other decision is of Appeal No.686/1996 decided on April 2, 1997, SDO, Telephones V/s. Fauja Singh. The telephone remained out of order for the period July, 15 to July 18,1996 and thereafter from July, 20 to July 25, 1996 due to underground fault. The defect was removed ultimately on August 5, 1996 i. e. after 23 days. In that case, initially fault was repaired and the telephone worked for a short period and it was taken that for all intents and purposes the fault continued as it reoccurred. The factum of underground fault was also observed and it was held that it was not a case of negligent act as the fault was repaired within reasonable time. Bona fide attempts were made to remove the fault. The ratio of the decisions aforesaid is not that on account of underground fault, there could never be negligence on the part of the Telephone Department in removing the same. In those cases, explanations were offered by the Telecom Department which were accepted and on facts, it was held that such were not the cases of negligent act. No specific period can be fixed either by the Authorities or by the FORA for removing the underground cable faults occurring. Rather it depends upon the nature of the fault and steps to be taken to remove the same. Present is a case where apart from asserting the period aforesaid for repairing the underground cable fault, no further details have been given as to why such faults could not be repaired earlier. The Telecom Department is in possession of the entire material as the officials of the Telecom Department alone know about steps taken and if they have failed to lead evidence on this subject, a presumption can be drawn that if produced, such material will not support their case. Twenty days' delay occurred in the present case in removing the underground cable fault, which has not been explained. Thus negligence is writ large on the part of the Telecom Department.