NEELAM RANI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After going through the record and after having heard the Counsel for the complainant and the opposite party, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum) found as a fact from the fault card produced by the opposite party itself that the telephone of the complainant had become faulty on 9.3.1998 and was rectified on 16.3.1998. Again it developed some fault on 20.3.1998, which was removed on 28.3.1998 and again fault occurred on 30.3.1998, which was removed on 8.4.1998. Still the District Forum dismissed the complaint by observing as under : "so, this shows that from 15.3.1998 to 30.3.1998 the telephone remained out of order for nine days and the telephone was set in order as and when the complaint was lodged except one it became faulty on 20.3.1998 and was rectified on 28.3.1998 but this is normal feature and it cannot be said that it amounts to deficiency in rendering service. The complaint, therefore, fails and is dismissed. "

(2.) Vide his order dated 15.10.1998, the District Forum has justified the action of the opposite party in not removing the fault immediately after the complaint was made to them. It has rather been held that delay in rectifying the faults by the Telephone Authority was a normal feature and thus it did not amount to deficiency in rendering service.

(3.) As noticed above, on the first occasion fault in the telephone was rectified after 7 days, on the second occasion, the department took 8 days to rectify the fault and on third occasion 8 days were taken to rectify the fault. Within a period of one month, the telephone remained dead for about 21 days. No explanation is coming from the opposite party as to why the telephone defect could not be rectified for such a long time and why the defect could not be rectified immediately or at the most on the next date.