By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> 1. The case of the complainant is that he avails the service of opposite party for telephone connection and his telephone number is 2460618. On 7-8-2006 his telephone was faulty. The complaint was that he could not make any outgoing calls. On the same day he made a complaint to the exchange as D-469. A lineman came to his house and on examination found that the snag was due to the defect of the instrument and that there was no instrument, in the exchange to replace the defective one. The lineman gave him two contact numbers as 0494-2460500 and 9446300803 to enquire when telephone instrument would be available for replacement. Though complainant made enquiries in these numbers he was repeatedly informed that no instrument was available for replacement. On 12-8-2006 he submitted a complaint before Malappuram SSA adalath. In the adalath he put forward two grievances. One was to replace the defective telephone instrument and the other was to give him rebate in rent for the period during which his telephone was faulty. He was asked to appear before the General Manager SSA on 27-9-2006. On 20-9-2006 itself he sent letter informing his inability to appear on that date. Opposite party took no effort to replace the faulty instrument. On 16-10-2006 he again complained to the Circle Adalath. On making repeated requests his telephone instrument was replaced on 1-12-2006. There was no response regarding his claim for rent rebate. On 2-1-2007 he made a written request to Chief General Manager, Trivandrum drum requesting for rent rebate from 7-8-2006 to 1-12-2006 during which his telephone was out of order. On 2-2-2007 he received reply from Deputy General Manager Public Grievance Cell. Complainant was aggrieved by the explanations in the reply that (1) rent rebate can be allowed only if the telephone is fully faulty for seven or more days, (2) that after 20-11-2006 no complaints were reported regarding defect of telephone. Complainant contends that as per instructions issued by TRA1 to consumers, if the telephone is faulty for three or more days consumer can claim rent rebate. The telephone of complainant was faulty for 3 months and 24 days, and he is entitled to rent rebate. Regarding the 2nd explanation of opposite party complainant alleges that his 1st complaint regarding defect of telephone was made on 7-8-2006 which was registered as D-469. Only because this complaint remained unattended and telephone was still faulty, further complaints were made on 12-8-2006 and 16-10-2006. As responses to these complaints lineman came to the house inspected and informed that the instrument is faulty and that there is no instrument in the exchange for replacement. While the above two complaints were subsisting on 20-11-2006 there was difficulty in hearing the incoming calls due to interruption by disturbing noises. This complaint was reported on 20-11-2006 which was registered as J-472. In response the lineman again came to his house checked the telephone and informed him that the instrument is faulty, and that there is no instrument in the exchange to replace the defective one. Thereafter only on repeated requests the telephone instrument was replaced on 1-12-2006. So from 7-8-2006 to 1-12-2006 his telephone was out of order. The defects noted in subscriber fault card on 7-8-2006, 29-9-2006 and 20-11-2006 are premises fault, cable fault, D/P Line fault respectively. It is also noted that his telephone is dead. These entries in subscriber fault card are wrong. The defect of his telephone was that inspite of having dial tone he could not make outgoing calls and there was disturbing sounds while conversing/receiving incoming calls. The defects was completely rectified when the instrument was replaced on 1-12-2006. That he has paid all bills regularly and from 1-1-2007 he has paid telephone bill for one year in advance. When the telephone was faulty he had to depend upon neighbours and in emergencies he used the telephone of his neighbours in his residence. Due to irresponsible attitude of opposite party he suffered much mental agony and hardships. Complainant claims rent rebate for the period 7-8-2006 to 1-12-2006 and compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.<br /> 2. Opposite party has not filed any version. Memo was filed on 19-10-2007 raising the contention that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. That the decision reported in KLT 20003 (1) 817 in General Manager, Telecom., BSNL Vs. Krishnan which overruled the decision rendered in 2000(2) KLT 195 General Manager Vs. CDRF is stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order in SLP No.18409/03 dated 29-11-2004. Since the operation of the impugned order rendered in KLT 2003(1) 817 is stayed this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case and complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. Evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A13 marked on the side of complainant. Exts.B1 and B2 marked on the side of opposite party. Both sides have filed affidavits. No oral evidence was adduced by either side.<br /> 4. The points that arise for consideration are <br /> (i) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try the case. <br /> (ii) Whether opposite party has committed any deficiency in service. <br /> (iii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> 5. Point (i):- In the memo filed by counsel for opposite party the jurisdiction of this Forum to adjudicate the matter is disputed. According to opposite party the decision reported in KLT 2003 (1) 817 General Manager, Telecom., BSNL Vs. Krishnan by which it was held that the remedy under Sec.3 of Consumer Protection Act is in addition to that provided under Sec.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, is stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29-11-2004 in SLP No.18409/03. Copy of the order dated, 29-11-2004 is produced. It reads as under:<br /> “Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following<br /> ORDER<br /> Delay condoned.<br /> Leave granted.<br /> Stay of the operation of the impugned order”.<br /> According to the counsel for opposite party the decision rendered in 2003 (1) KLT 817 is stayed by the above order and therefore the decision in 2000(2) KLT 195 is restored/revived. Though in the memo it is stated that copy of the diary extract is produced in an earlier case, in fact an unclear, unreadable unattested copy was produced in an earlier case. Even after repeated directions to produce a clear/readable copy counsel for opposite party has failed to comply with the direction for one reason or the other. So we are unaware as to the contents of the diary extract. With all respects to the Honourable Apex Court and higher judiciary we proceed to discuss our view regarding the question of jurisdiction as disputed by opposite party.<br /> 6. We do not agree with the counsel for opposite party for the reason that the stay if any is applicable only to the order that is appealed against. We consider that what is stayed in SLP-18409/03 on 29-11-2004 is the execution of the ultimate direction in that case and the law declared is certainly binding on us till it is held as overruled. In the order dated 29-11-2004 in SLP 18409/03 there was no discussion or finding as to the position of law. A perusal of the order shows that it is an interim order passed till the disposal of the case. We brought to the notice of counsel for opposite party that cases against BSNL(Telephone matters) are being decided by Hon'ble National Com mission as is evident from the various decisions reported in the consumer journals. This was controverted by the counsel for opposite party. He submitted that the stay is applicable only to the State of Kerala. District Forum being subordinate to the National Commission is bound to follow the decision of the Apex Commission. It was also submitted by the counsel for opposite party that by the order of stay in SLP 18409/03 the position of law rendered in 2000(2) KLT 195 is revived/restored. We find it difficult to accept this argument of counsel for opposite party Sri.P.Harikumar. If this submission is to be accepted then courts will find it difficult to apply any reported ruling since the court will have to search and find out whether there is any stay in existence.<br /> 7. Complainant who appeared in person contended that as per the TRA1 (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) directions published in newspaper on 14-5-2006 it is stated that telephone consumers can approach the Consumer Forum for redressal of their grievances. The newspaper cutting is produced and marked as Ext.A7. Counsel for opposite party made a submission that the cases against Telecom., BSNL can be kept in abeyance before this Forum till the final disposal of SLP 18409/03 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consumer Protection Act provides a time limit of 90 days to dispose a case. Although this time limit is not mandatory; to keep the cases pending indefinitely would be doing injustice to the complainants. Especially consumer Forum being an authority which allows parties to appear and litigate in person without the help of lawyers; it would cause much hardships to them if the cases are kept pending indefinitely.<br /> 8. With all respects to the Apex Court, and humbly submitting ourselves to the rule of 'Stare decisis' we are of the view that when a position of law is declared it is binding until it is discussed and overruled. We hold that the rule laid in General Manager, Telecom., BSNL Vs. Krishnan 2003(1) KLT 817 (F.B.) is still in force and therefore this Forum has jurisdiction to try this complaint. This point found in favour of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. Complainant is mainly aggrieved that he is not given rent rebate during the period from 7-8-2006 to 1-12-2006 when his telephone was out of order. Ext.A1 is the letter<br /> <br /> dated 12-8-2006 written by complainant to M.Sahadevan. Sub Divisional Engineer,<br /> BSNL regarding the unrectified complaint of his telephone. Ext.A2 is the letter dated, 19-9-2006 issued by opposite party to complainant informing him that his complaint has been referred to telephone adalath for settlement, and calling upon him to be present on 27-09-2006 for personal hearing. According to complainant since he could not appear on that day he informed opposite party about his inconvenience by letter dated, 20-9-2006. Ext.A3 is the letter dated, 16-10-2006 written by complainant to the Assistant General Manager, BSNL., Thiruvananthapuram requesting to replace his defective telephone. Ext.A4 is the letter dated, 2-1-2007 written by complainant to CGMT., BSNL., Thiruvananthapuram stating that his faulty telephone is replaced on 1-12-2006 and requesting for rent rebate. Ext.A5 is the letter dated, 2-2-2007 issued by Deputy General Manager, CGMT., Thiruvananthapuram informing the complainant that as per existing guidelines, the rent rebate for the period of fault is available only if the number of days exceeds 7 days and the service is completely interrupted. Ext.A6 is the letter dated, 21-2-2007 written by complainant to Deputy General Manager, CGMT., Thiruvananthapuram, to reconsider the claim for rent rebate. Ext.A7 is the paper cutting of the directions issued by TRA1 to consumers. Ext.A8 is the reply dated 24-5-2007 issued by Deputy General Manager, CGMT., Trivandrum to complainant stating that as per call records his telephone was not faulty for more than 3 days and therefore he is not eligible for rent rebate. Ext.A9 is the letter dated, 31-5-2007 written by complainant to Sri.S. Ramakrishna Iyer, Deputy General Manager, CGMT., BSNL., Trivandrum. Ext.A10 is the receipt of sending Ext.A9 letter by Certificate of posting. Ext.A11 series are the telephone bills. Ext.A12 is the bill issued at the time of installation. Ext.A13 is page 22 of Telephone Directory regarding rent rebate information.<br /> <br /> <br /> 10. Opposite party has not filed any version. Counter affidavit and documents were filed. Ext.B1 is the fortnightly meter reading of the telephone of the complainant. Ext.B2 is the details of bill from 7-8-2006 to 31-12-2006. Opposite party resists the claim for rent rebate on the ground that the telephone of the complainant was out of order for less than three days. It was faulty only for 57 hrs. ie., from 20-11-2006 at 6 hrs. to 22-11-2006 at 4.59 hrs. The inconsistant versions of opposite party is made out in Ext.A5 and Ext.A8. In Ext.A5 the reason to reject claim for rebate is given as “As per the existing guidelines, the rent rebate for period of fault is eligible if the number of days, exceed 7 day sand the service is completely interrupted.” To this complainant has sent Ext.A6 letter bringing to the notice of opposite party the guidelines issued to telephone consumers by TRA1, which is Ext.A7. Thereafter opposite party has caused Ext.A8 reply explaining that as per call records there was no interruption for more than 3 days. In the counter affidavit it is affirmed that the interruption was less than 3 days. Ext.A1 to A9 are the communications regarding the fault of telephone of the complainant. According to him the instrument was faulty from 7-8-2006 to 1-12-2006. On 1-12-2006 when the instrument was replaced his grievance with respect to faulty telephone was redressed. He affirms that during the relevant period he could not make any out going calls and there was disturbing noises while attending incoming calls. Any telephone service must be clear, loud, effective and audible. Opposite party collects charges from customers and therefore is responsible to render proper and perfect services. Even after repeated complaints opposite party has lagged the replacement of telephone. A customer who avails such monopolized services is certainly entitled to prompt and proper services.<br /> <br /> 11. Counsel for opposite party relied on Ext.B1 and B2 and contended that the telephone was not out of order for more than three days and that calls were registered during the alleged faulty period. Complainant refuted this contention and submitted that he was using the telephone of his neighbours in his house in emergencies. This submission is supported by the pleading in Para 4 of the complaint and Ext.A9. He further submitted that although the customer fault card in Ext.A8 denotes that his telephone was dead on 7-8-2006, 29-9-2006 and 20-11-2006 it was not 'dead'. He could receive incoming calls during this period and there was dial tone for the telephone. He also submits that the type of fault denoted in Customer Fault Card on these days is 'Sub Premises Fault, Cable Fault, DP/Line Fault'. This is incorrect. The line man who inspected the phone had informed him that the snag was due to the defect of the instrument. On 1-12-2006 when the instrument was replaced his grievance was solved. Complainant has succeeded in establishing and proving that his telephone was faulty from 7-8-2006 to 1-12-2006. Opposite party though contends that rent rebate can be given only if the telephone is fully interrupted for three days, has not produced before us the relevant provision/rule/guidelines to support this contention. Further opposite party has not filed any version. The evidence tendered by the counter affidavit is not supported by pleadings. For the above said reasons we hold that the complainant is entitled to rent rebate from 7-8-2006 to 1-12-2006.<br /> <br /> 12. Complainant has taken much strain and pain to get his grievance redressed. Opposite party has no explanation why there was delay in replacing the telephone even<br /> after complainant made repeated and written requests. Government owned or managed organisations must be more sensitive and accountable to consumers. Any amount of negligence on their part would amount to deficiency in service. Though complainant claims Rs.10,000/- as compensation we hold that a sum of Rs.1000/- for the mental agony and hardships would serve justice.<br /> <br /> 13. In the result, we allow the complaint and order opposite party to give rebate in rent for the period from 7-8-2006 to 1-12-2006 in future bills to the complainant and pay a sum of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as compensation within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 10th day of January, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A13<br /> Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the petition dated, 12-8-06 by complainant <br /> to SSA adalath.<br /> Ext.A2 : Letter dated, 19-9-2006 by opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the petition dated, 16-10-06 by complainant <br /> to Circle adalath. <br /> Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the petition dated, 2-01-07 by complainant <br /> to Opposite party. <br /> Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 2-02-07 sent by Opposite party <br /> to complainant . <br /> Ext.A6 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 21-02-07 sent by complainant<br /> to Opposite party. <br /> Ext.A7 : Paper cutting dated, 14-5-2006 by opposite party to consumers.<br /> Ext.A8 : Letter dated, 24-05-07 sent by Opposite party to complainant . <br /> Ext.A9 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 31-05-07 sent by complainant<br /> to Opposite party. <br /> Ext.A10 : Certificate of posting dated, 31-5-2007 from Post Office,<br /> Tirurangadi.<br /> Ext.A1 1 : Telephone Bill nos. 95438042 and 2043445.<br /> Ext.A1 2 : Bill for installation fee, adjustment of Advance Deposit <br /> dated, 4-5-1992.<br /> Ext.A13 : Photo copy of the page 22 of Telephone directory 1996 <br /> for Rebate information.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2<br /> Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the fortnightly readings of the complainant.<br /> Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the Detailed bill of the complainant in 10 pages.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER