<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Sri. N. .Premkumar (Member):<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from this Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. The facts of this complainant is as follows: The complainant is a telephone subscriber of opposite parties. His telephone number is 553538 of Vadasserikara Telephone Exchange. His telephone found not working on 6.04.2002. On the basis of his complaint, the first opposite party has provided a new telephone set on 16.04.2004. The said set was also faulty. He made a complaint again on 17.04.2002. Again the first opposite party replaced another set. Again, on 18.05.2002 onwards, the telephone was not working. For that he made several complaints, but no result. Again he tried to record his complaint to first opposite party’s complaint book. But they sent back him by threatening. Thereafter, the complainant sent one Rony Mathew to record the complaint. But he was also sent back by first opposite party without allowing to record the complaint in the complaint book. Thereafter on 5.06.2002, the complainant filed a complaint before Telephone Vigilance Office, Thiruvalla. On the same day, complainant also recorded his complaint to the first opposite party’s complaint book. On 8.06.2002, the complainant got telephone connection.<br /> <br /> 3. During the period from 6.04.2002 to 8.06.2002, i.e. 40 days, complainant’s telephone was not functioned properly due to the deficiency of service and dereliction of duty from the part of the opposite parties. Because of this, the complainant has caused several inconveniences. Moreover, he was the office bearer of one organisation, he cannot function effectively due to the opposite party’s fault, which caused monetary loss and mental agony. Hence, this O.P. is filed for getting compensation of Rs.2,500/- from the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 4. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. As per fault register, the first fault was on 8.4.2002. It was rectified on 16.4.2002. Next fault was reported on 26.4.2002 and the same was rectified on 29.4.2002. Again fault was reported on 5.6.2002 and rectified on 8.6.2002. If the complainant has any complaint, he can register the same through ‘198’ which is a non-metered number. If not satisfied with the said method, he can contact the Junior Telecom Officer/Sub Divisional Engineer, either by phone or through a complaint letter. Moreover, public grievance cells are also functioning at Divisional Head Quarters and SSA Head Quarters where subscribers can make complaints directly. In this case, the complainant has not utilized any of the above facilities.<br /> <br /> 5. The opposite parties have not prevented the complainant from recording the complaints in the complaint book. The complaint book is kept not inside the office but in the office premises, which is easily accessible by all. A lot of complaints have been registered by other subscribers in the book during the period. Many of the telephone in and around Vadasserikara went out of order during the months of April and May due to heavy lightning. and this number was also affected due to lightning. The complainant’s number is working at a distance of 4.5 Kms. from the exchange near forest with difficult terrain. The area is lightning prone and is not covered by public transport system. Even though the fault rectification works started on 8.4.2002, it took 8 days to rectify the fault, since cable faults were developed at different locations due to heavy lightning. Rent rebate was also recommended for 8 days, i.e. from 8.4.2002 to 16.4.2002, stating that the said period, the telephone remains out of order. A copy of the meter reading register for the period from 1.4.2002 to 15.6.2002 is submitted also.<br /> <br /> 6. Moreover, the opposite parties’ contention is that faults were caused by circumstances beyond the control of first and second opposite party. They did their best to render maximum satisfactory service by rectifying the defects within the least possible time. The opposite parties are in no way responsible for the losses suffered by the complainant. It is also contended that this case is not maintainable before this Forum, on the basis of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in W.A. No.2015/199-B.<br /> <br /> 7. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed an additional version on 14.11.2002 in response to the complainant’s affidavit. As per additional version, they denied the allegation of out of order for 40 days since 6.4.2002. But admits that there was faults in three different period. The total number of days in out of order was only 14 days instead of 40. The complaint book was not denied to the complainant. As per subscriber fault card and the progressive meter reading, it is seen that occurrence of only three occasional faults as against the pleaded continuous fault while other subscribers have registered their complaints during the period in the complaint register which is kept in the office premises accessible to all. The allegation that the complainant in this case alone was not permitted to do so by a phone mechanic whose duty is primarily out-door, whenever the complainant came to the office, is not at all believable. Therefore, they pray for the dismissal of the above complaint with their cost.<br /> <br /> 8. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:<br /> (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?<br /> (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for?<br /> (3) Reliefs and Costs?<br /> <br /> 9. The evidence of this case consists of oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him have been marked as Exts.A1 to A3 series. Ext.A1 is the copy of complaint lodged before the Thiruvalla Telephone Vigilance Officer dated 5.6.2002. Ext.A1(a) is the acknowledgment card returned from above office. Ext.A2 is the copy of complaint lodged before the Thiruvalla Telephone Vigilance Officer dated 6.7.2002. Ext.A2(a) is the receipt of certificate of posting of the above complaint. Exts.A3 to A3(i) (10 in number) are the telephone bills dated 3/02 to 9/02.<br /> <br /> 10. From the opposite party’s side, no witness was examined, but Exts.B1, B2, B3, B3(a) and B3(b) documents are marked through PW1. Ext.B1 is the copy of subscriber fault card recording the faults from 8.4.2002 to 8.6.2002. Ext.B2 is the progressive bi-weekly meter reading from 1.4.2002 to 15.6.2002. The complaint register is marked as Ext.B3. The relevant complaint of complainant dated 5.6.2002 is marked as Ext.B3(a). Another complaint of complainant in page No.39 of Ext.B3 is marked as Ext.B3(b). After closure of evidence, both sides heard. <br /> <br /> 11. Point No.1: The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the dispute between the parties herein is a consumer dispute. Even though Sec.7B of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 is in force, Consumer Protection Act is enacted as an additional law and it is not in derogative of any other law for the time being in force. Hence, the first point is answered against the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 12. Point Nos. 2 & 3: On a perusal of Ext.A1, A1(a), it is found that the complainant’s telephone has not been functioning properly in between 6.4.2002 to 8.6.2002. His allegation is that telephone was not working for a period of 40 days. But as per Exts.B1 and B2, it is seen that the fault occurred during three occasions i.e. from 8.4.2002 to 16.4.2002, from 26.4.2002 to 29.4.2002, from 5.6.2002 to 8.6.2002. The total number of faulty days was calculated as 14 in number. The faulty days are calculated on the basis of the entries in Ext.B1 subscriber fault card and Ext.B2 bi-weekly meter reading. Therefore, Exts.B1 and B2 are reliable and acceptable than the complainant’s evidence.<br /> <br /> 13. The complainant’s plea is that he has caused several inconvenience and hardship due to the fault of his telephone. But the opposite party’s contention is that telephone went out of order due to the natural calamities such as lightning, heavy rain etc. Therefore, fault was caused by circumstances beyond their control. It is seen that fault occurred twice in April. But the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove that the fault was due to natural calamities. They used natural calamities as a blanket to escape from their inaction and negligence.<br /> <br /> 14. The complainant’s another allegation is that he was not allowed to record his complaint in the complaint book kept by the opposite parties. In this regard, opposite parties contended that the complaint book was available and so many complaints were recorded in the said book. They have produced the complaint book also and it was marked as Ext.B3. Ext.B3 register seen opened on 13.5.2002 whereas the relevant period according to the complainant is April 2002. Non-production of the complaint book of relevant period by the opposite parties leads a presumption against the opposite parties. In the circumstances, the allegation of the complainant in this regard is proved against the opposite parties. Opposite parties has to function in good faith with service mentality to the public which caused inconveniences and mental agony which has to be compensated. Moreover, in this case rent rebate for 8 days offered to the complainant. This itself shows that opposite parties are admitting the deficiency of service. On the basis of the above discussion, we find deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties’ officials. Therefore, this O.P. is allowable. The rent rebate offered by the opposite parties is not adequate to compensate the complainant’s sufferings. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties for their deficiency of service.<br /> <br /> 15. In the result, the complaint is allowed, thereby the complainant is allowed to realise compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) from the opposite parties. Since there is no separate prayer for cost, no cost is ordered. It is also ordered that, opposite parties can adjust the aforesaid amount in the future bills of the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest for the awarded amount will follow at 9% per annum till the whole payment. <br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of September, 2008.<br /> (Sd/-)<br /> N. Premkumar,<br /> (Member)<br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)<br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bha (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> Appendix:<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : George Varghese.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Carbon copy of the complaint dated 5.6.2002 submitted by the complainant <br /> before the Telephone Vigilance Officer, Thiruvalla.<br /> A(a) : Postal acknowledgment card.<br /> A2 : Carbon copy of the complaint dated 6.7.2002 submitted by the complainant <br /> before the Telephone Vigilance Officer, Thiruvalla.<br /> A2(a) : Receipt of certificate of posting of Ext.A2.<br /> A3 : Telephone bill dated 11.3.2002 for Rs.1226/- issued by the opposite parties to <br /> the complainant.<br /> A3(a) to A3(i) :Telephone bills (9 in number) issued by the opposite parties to the <br /> complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:<br /> B1 : Photocopy of the Subscriber Fault Card.<br /> B2 : Photocopy of the fortnightly meter readings from 1.4.2002 to 15.6.2002.<br /> B3 : Complaint register.<br /> B3(a) & B1(b):The relevant portions in the Ext.B3 complaint register (page Nos.38 & 39).<br /> <br /> (By Order)<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.<br />