O R D E R
By Sri.C.T.Sabu, President
The case of the complainant is that he is the subscriber of telephone No.0487 2315103 of the opposite parties. He is prompt in remitting the telephone charges. His telephone was not working from 24/11/03 and on 25/11/13 complaint was submitted as per F 712. Subsequently when there was no response from the side of opposite parties another online complaint is also registered as per KRL/CO/2013/27053 on 21/12/13. Even then no relief received and on 30/12/13 he directly called AGMOP) and submitted his grievances. Then on 31/12/13 opposite parties rectified the complaint. He is aggrieved by non-rectification of the complaint in time. According to the complainant there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint is filed for getting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for damages and loss sustained by him.
2. In the version the opposite parties admitted that the complainant is the subscriber of telephone No.2315103 of Valakavu Exchange and that the fault was reported on 25/11/13. The fault was registered at Exchange on 25/11/13 and handed over to the line staff on the same day. As there were a large number of faults at Valakkavu Telephone Exchange due to the damages of cable consequent to the trenching and restoration of roads by other agencies, the fault of complainant’s telephone could be rectified by 31/12/13 only. As the telephone systems is vulnerable to vagaries of weather, fault on a telephone may develop at any time. Fault free service cannot be guaranteed to a subscriber. All what can be done is to rectify the faults as quickly as possible. The opposite parties have rectified the defect as soon as possible. Further the opposite parties have given rent rebate in terms of Rule 446(2) of the Indian Telegraph Rules, by adjustment in the next bill as per the sanction accorded. The counsel vehemently argued that the complainant has failed to prove that he has suffered loss due to the non working of the telephone. As per Section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act, no officer shall be responsible for any loss or damage due to non working of telephone line, unless he causes the same negligently, maliciously or fraudulently. The National Commission has held in Revision Petition No.130 of 1995 (Appeal No.598/93 of the State Commission Rajasthan) Union of India and Anothers V. Rej Bhan decided on 30/1/1996 that the liability of payment of compensation will arise only if the complainant proves that the negligence on the part of the government or its officials is with malafide intention or any collusion with somebody. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed.
3. Points for consideration are that :
1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2) If so what reliefs and costs ?
4. The complainant has submitted proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. He has produced two documents, which are marked as Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P1 is copy of lawyer notice dated 1/1/2014 and Ext.P2 is A/D card. The opposite parties submitted proof affidavit in which they have narrated all the averments stated in their version in detail. They have also produced the copy of judgement dated 19/8/16 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram and marked as Ext.R1.
5. On going through the proof affidavits filed and the documents produced by both parties, it is evident that complainant’s telephone was in fault as alleged in the complaint. But the fault was rectified by the opposite parties quickly as possible. The fault was registered at Exchange on 25/11/2013 and handed over to the line staff on the same day. As the telephone system is vulnerable to vagaries of weather, fault on a telephone may develop at any time. Fault free service cannot be guaranteed to a subscriber. All what can be done is to rectify the faults quickly as possible, as argued by the counsel of the opposite parties. It is evident that the opposite parties rectified the defects as soon as possible. Further the opposite parties have given rent rebate for the non working period of the telephone also. The complainant failed to prove that he has suffered loss due to the non working of the telephone, or any malicious, fraudulent negligence on the part of the officers concerned. The findings of the National Commission in revision petition No.130 of 1995 (Appeal No.598/93 of the State Commission Rajasthan) of Union of India and Anothers V. Rej Bhan is squarely applicable in this case to a certain extent. Ext. R1 judgement also applicable in this case. The complainant could not make out a case that there is any negligence or malafied intension on the part of the opposite parties. So we are in the opinion that there is no deficiency in service rendered to the complainant.
In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 15th day of September 2020.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja.S Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair C.T.Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.P1 copy of lawyer notice dated 1/1/2014
Ext.P2 A/D card
Opposite Parties Exhibit
Ext.R1 copy of judgement dated 19/8/16 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram
Id/-
President
