DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST,
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 917/2016
D.No._________________________ Dated: _________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. H.C. CHAWLA S/o LATE SH. A.R. CHAWLA,
R/o 785, RISHI NAGAR (RANI BAGH),
SHAKUR BASTI, DELHI-110034. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER-NORTH),
SECTOR-3, ROHINI, DELHI-110085. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 16.09.2016
Date of decision: 14.11.2018
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant is a Senior Citizen and a regular customer of OP having installed telephone no. 27017635 at his residence and the complainant has been paying service charge alongwith call charges and other applicable taxes to OP and OP is
CC No. 917/2016 Page 1 of 6
service provider through their telephone exchange in SaraswatiVihar, Delhi office and the complainant’s consumer number is 2041017635. The complainant further alleged that the complainant is filing the present complaint against the OP for their negligence, deficiency in service and dilatory attitude in not making the complainant’s phone no. 27017635 functional since lodging of complaint by the complainant on 17.08.2016 vide complaint no. 200 dated 17.08.2016 and the complainant was told by the SaraswatiVihar Telephone Exchange that due to a cable fault, the telephone service could not be provided and the same will be restored within 2/3 days but the service was not restored despite many repeated assurances. Thereafter, the complainant kept reminding the concerned SDO and other officials of OP a number of times for restoration of the services and due to non-functioning of the said phone and the complainant suffered immense problems of ‘cut-off’ from near and dears and could not book LPG refill from Indane Gas till date and could not make/receive calls in emergency, etc and the complainant was left with no alternative but to buy readymade food and other consumables from the market due to empty LPG refill besides facing many other inconveniences without telephone facility. After having exhausted all efforts to get back the telephone service from OPdespite several requests and visits, the
CC No. 917/2016 Page 2 of 6
complainant served a notice dated 12.09.2016 to GM, MTNL, Rohini Zone, Delhi requesting for immediate restoration of telephone services and to compensate the complainant for the financial loss, harassment, inconvenience and mental agony within 48 hours, failing which the complainant shall take legal remedy as approach of OP amounts to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint praying for direction to the OP to compensation @ Rs.500/- per day from the date of lodging of the complaint with OP on 17.08.2016 till the date of making phone no. 27017635 functional, towards financial loss, mental agony and harassment, travelling expenses from residence to SaraswatiVihar Telephone Exchange and back a number of times and to Zonal office of OP and has also sought Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. OP has been contesting the complaint and has filed written statement. In its written statement, OP submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. OP submitted that the telephone no. 27017365 remained faulty with effect from 17.08.2016 to 25.09.2016 due to primary cable break down and after repair the telephone was restored on 26.09.2016 and on the same day the complainant was informed about repair of primary
CC No. 917/2016 Page 3 of 6
cable (rotss) and further for the period of fault in service a rebate of Rs.306/- was provided to the complainant and thus there is no deficiency in service.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the submissions of the OP and submitted that OP has taken a false plea.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of bill dated 09.08.2016 issued by OP and copy of notice dated 12.09.2016 sent by the complainant to OP.
6. On the other hand, Sh. G.P. Gautam, SDO (Phones-II) of OP filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per line of defence taken by OP in the written statement.OP has also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as OP in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Though there is no denial from the complainant that OP has provided rebate of Rs.306/- for the period in which the telephone has remained faulty but the telephone connection of the complainant admittedly remained faulty for a period of 40 days i.e. w.e.f. 17.08.2016 to 26.09.2016 and the complaint of fault in telephone was lodged by the complainant with OP on 17.08.2016
CC No. 917/2016 Page 4 of 6
which was registered by OP as CFC no. 71659 dated 18.08.2016. Now a days, the telephone connection is an essential supply/service and OP cannot take the defence that rebate of Rs.306/- was provided to the complainant. There is no justification as to why the telephone connection of the complainant could not be repaired by OP immediately after lodging the complaint. OP cannot keep silent and there is no justification that OP would repair the telephone line in 40 days. Thus inaction on the part of OP to repair the telephone line of the complainant immediately after receiving the complaint amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, OP is held guilty of deficiency in service.
8. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.
9. The above amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from
CC No. 917/2016 Page 5 of 6
the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 14th day of November, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
