1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is the subscriber to the Landline bearing No.251112 since long and has been paying the bills regularly to the Ops.  It is submitted that on many occasions the telephone becomes out of order but the Ops in spite of complaints were hardly attending the service.  It is specifically submitted that the telephone even if remains out of order for 6 to 8 months but the Ops deliberately do not attend the complaints for which the complainant sustained professional loss and suffered mental agony.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to take adequate and appropriate steps to provide telephone service and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that there were 3 faults as on the date during the year 20016.

                        1. Fault on 20.1.16 rectified on 21.1.2016.

                        2. Fault on 01.3.16 rectified on the same day.

                        3. Fault on 11.06.16 rectified on 16.8.2016.

It is submitted that as the first 2 faults were less that 3 days, no discount was allowed but on the fault from 11.6.16 to 16.8.2016 a total rebate of Rs.521.41 was allowed in favour of the complainant.   The Ops further contended that the defect occurred due to cable fault and it took time for restoration.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from the complainant and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, the landline bearing No.06854251112 allotted in favour of the complainant by the Ops is an admitted fact.  The complainant alleges that the landline on many occasions becomes out of order due to technical fault but the Ops attend the fault very casually.  The complainant further alleges that the telephone even if remains out of service for 6 to 8 months but to no action by the Ops which caused mental agony and professional loss to the complainant.

5.                     The Ops in their counter admitted that there were 3 faults in the year 2016 out of which fault on 11.6.2016 rectified on 16.8.2016 is a long term cable fault and hence the Ops allowed a rebate of Rs.521.41 in favour of the complainant.  No explanation has been advanced by the Ops as to why the cable could not be repaired for such a longer period.  The Ops are definitely answerable to the customers for any delay in rectifying the defects as the telephone is an essential service. Any delay for restoration of telephone line beyond reasonable period cannot be tolerated.  In the above circumstances, without advancing any reason, inordinate delay in bringing the telephone into order amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  In this case, the complainant says that the telephone remained dead for 6 to 8 months but the Ops say that the cable fault was from 11.6.2016 to 16.8.2016.  However, the Ops committed delay in repairing the cable fault.  As such in our opinion, for the injuries caused by the Ops, the complainant is entitled for some compensation.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.1000/- towards compensation in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

6.                     Hence ordered that the complainant petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order.

(to dict.)