1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is the subscriber to landline telephone bearing No.06854-231124 and the said telephone became non functional during March, 2017 for which on 26.3.2017 a complaint was lodged and a lineman checked the line and opined that the cable was out of order.  It is submitted that a complaint was lodged at the local telephone counter on 30.3.2017 and again on 11.4.2017.  As the telephone line was not repaired, the complainant sent registered letters to OP.1 on 13.4.2017 and 05.7.2017 requesting OP.1 to repair the telephone line and adjust the collected amount during non functional period in the future bill.  It is further submitted that the telephone was made functional on 26.7.2017 but after a couple of days, it again went out of order.  The complainant on 09.8.2017 through a registered letter requested the OP.1 to repair the telephone line and adjust the amount already collected from him but to no effect.  He again reminded the OP ending with registered letter dt.11.9.2017 to get the telephone line repaired but to no result.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to get the telephone functional immediately, to pay Rs.7000/- towards compensation and costs with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay back the amount already collected for the non functional period.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint admitting the concerned landline provided to the complainant and contended that the telephone has been installed at Raja Palace area and for the renovation of Raja Palace, repair work was going on from 04/2017 to 07/2017 and thereafter from 01.9.2017 to 30.09.2017 for which there was cable fault and the telephone of the complainant was functioning for the period 01.8.2017 to 31.8.2017.  It is further contended that since 01.10.2017 the telephone of the complainant is working.  The Ops contended that due to repair work of Raja Palace, the cable was fault which is beyond their control and during non functional period, the Ops are ready to allow rebate in the rent of the telephone.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops, prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents along with Written Argument in support of their case.  The Ops filed affidavit.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, the complainant stated that his telephone became non functional during March, 2017 for which he lodged complaint on 26.3.2017.  In spite of repeated correspondences, the telephone was made functional only on 26.7.17 but after a couple of days it again went out of order.  The complainant also stated that for the said non functional of telephone, he made written correspondences and personally approached the Ops but without any result.  His request for adjustment of bill also did not yield any result.

5.                     The Ops have admitted that due to repair of Raja Palace where the telephone is installed, the cable was not working in that area from 4/17 to 7/17 and again from 01.9.17 to 30.9.17.  The Ops further stated that the complainant has paid the bills for the entire period and they are prepared to allow rebate in the rent from 01.4.17 to 31.7.17 and from 01.9.2017 to 30.9.17.

6.                     The complainant stated that during non functional period, the monthly billing was done and the amount was collected which speaks about unfair trade practice.  The Ops on the said submission of the complainant stated that their billing is being done at Kolkata/Pune by computer system for which they have no control over the billing but they can allow rebate subsequently.

7.                     It is seen from the record that on 11.9.2017 the complainant sent his last registered letter to OP.1 to get the telephone line repaired and adjust the amount in the future bill which has already been collected from the complainant.  The Ops have not considered the said grievance of the complainant and they also did not feel it proper to write a line to the complainant apprising him about their steps being taken.  This case is filed on 04.10.17 and the Ops have come up with their counter on 04.1.18 stating that they are prepared to refund the excess amount taken from the complainant during non functional period.  This inaction of the Ops in our opinion certainly amounts to deficiency in service.  We do not understand as to why a consumer should go after a service provider for availing service for which the service provider has already been paid.

8.                     In this case, the Ops however have admitted that they are ready to allow rebate in the rent for the non functional period of the telephone i.e. from 01.4.17 to 31.7.17 and from 01.9.17 to 30.9.17.  Due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has also come up with this case incurring some expenditure.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.3000/- towards costs.

9.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to allow rebate in rent of the telephone from 01.4.2017 to 31.7.2017 and from 01.9.2017 to 30.9.2017 in respect of telephone of the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this case i.e. 04.10.2017 and to pay Rs.3000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)