case of the complainant is as follows:

He had a phone connecton from the oppsite partieswith vide consumer No:04829-284676. He made a complaint before the opposite parties on 21.6.2007 with regard to the fault of telephone. Complainant made oral complaint before the 3^rd opposite party for rectifying the defects occurred from 194.06 to 8.6.06, altogether 22 days the telephone was not functioning. Complainant made a complaint before P.G.Cell at Kottayam on 28.7.06. but there was no progress in the telephone problem. Moreover the opposite party has not reduced the fixed charge of the complainant. There was a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties not to rectfy the defects of his telephone. Hence this complaint.

Notice was served with opposite parties. They appeared and filed their joint version contenting as follows:As per the complaint all possible steps are taken in time for the rectificaton of the fault connection to the subscriber was provided from the pillar

No.45 of Muttuchira area. The connection has a primary cable of 2500 m.upto P 45, distribution cable of 500 m. from P 45 upto DP and line alignment of about 70 m from DP

The

-2-

to subscriber premises The number had cable fault and line breath. The cable fault was due to heavy lightining and the line break was due to the fell of branches of Rubber tree in subscriber loop wire. Due to heavy rain and heavy lightning, the cable pit could not be opened and so rectification of cable fault in the primary cable was delayed when the cable fault was rectified line break down occurred and so restoraton of service was further delayed and the fault was rectified on 12.7.07. There was no laches, negligence or delay for rectifying the fault. Rent rebate for 15 days is allowed as per order of general manager telecom for the period of 19.4.06 to 28.4.07, Eventhough the fault was for 9 days and rent rebate for another 15 days was allowed for the period from 1.5.06 to 10.5.06 even though the fault was for 9 days and rent rebate for another 15 days is now sanctioned for the period from 30.5.06 to 10.6.06 even though the fault was for 11 days and rent rebate for 1 month was sanctioned for the period from 21.6.07 to 12.7.07 even though the fault was for 21 days. All these rebates will be adjusted in future bills. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has not entitled to get any amount as compensation. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

The complainant filed proof Affidavit and the opposite parties filed counter affidavit.

Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version and evidences. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties had not rectified the defects of the complainants telephone even after repeated complaint made by him. He has made a contention that the opposite party has purposefully evade the complainants request for rectifying the defects. According to him he has suffered heavy loss and inconveniences due to the act of the opposite parties. The opposite party has taken a contention that the defects in the complainant's telephone was occurred due to heavy lightning and heavy rain. According to them they rectified the defects as and when the complaints received

from the complainant. But opposite party has admitted that some delay was occurred to rectifies the defects of the complainant's telephone due to some technical and other reasons. Thus the delay was not due to the fault of the opposite parties. Moreover the opposite parties had provided the rent rebate for the faulty period of the complainant's telephone. The opposite parties submitted that they are provided the complainant's telephone

-3-

connection through underground cables. Admittedly the problem was rectified and at present the functioning of the telephone was correct. Almost grievances of the complainant was provided by the opposite parties. But the complainant was insisted for a compensation for his inconveniences and the ailment problem of his wife. From the available evidence it can be seen that the almost problems of the telephone were rectified by the opposite parties through underground cables. Admittedly the rent rebate was also given to the complainant for the faulty period of the telephone. There was no evidence to show that the complainant has heavy loss due to his telephone fault. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the alleged defects was occurred due to the negligence of the opposite parties. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant was already settled by the opposite parties. Therefore we find that the case of the complainant is to be disposed of by paying Rs.500/- as costs of these proceedings.

In the result the complainant is allowed as follows: We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.500/- as costs of these proceedings to the complainant. The said amount will be adjusted in future bills. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of this order.