By Sri. K Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> The gist of the complaint in brief is as follows.<br /> <br /> <br /> The Complainant is a subscriber of telephone with a No. 542246. The connection was availed in the year 1998. Being an employ as the Field Officer the department of Animal Husbandry at Kattikulam the telephone connection and its service is unavoidable. The telephone connection went out of order in many occasions and at that time when the telephone was in disorder. The Complainant wrote it in the complaint book kept in the Opposite Party's Office from 1.06.2000 onwards till 29.06.2000 The telephone was in disorder and it was repaired on 30.06.2000. As such the telephone was out of order from 3rd August to 17 and September 3rd to 12. In all the occasions when ever the telephone was in disorder the complaint was given in time. The registering of the complaint in the complaint book had no effect similarly in other different occasions complaint was registered in the book. After 13.10.2000 the disorder of the telephone was not repaired and the telephone was not brought in to effective function. The notice sent to the Opposite Party was also not responded. <br /> <br /> 2. On 18.10.2000, a near relative of the Complainant died in an accident the complainant could not be communicated. The funeral because of the disorder of the telephone. Beyond that because of the non function of the telephone Complainant had spent huge amount for the purpose of telephone, the non function of the telephone issued by the Opposite Party is a deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the Opposite party to refund the rent collected during the period of non function of telephone, awarding Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and cost, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service of the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> 3. The Opposite Parties filed version. The subscriber of telephone is at Kunnamangalam in a distance of 7 km from the Mananthavady Exchange. The telephone of the Complainant was working properly till the construction of the new road at Kunnamangalam. The Complainant is also a member in the connected committee to construct the road. The road construction was done under the telephone line for the distance of 1 km and in the construction process. The telephone posts were almost buried by soil. The cable which pases along road become law and touchable to the passengers. The road construction was done without any notice to the telephone authorities. More over the cable became loose there by the connections to other numbers also interrupted and disorderd. The earth work and other construction process was the reason for the disorder of the telephone connection. The telephone property was in effect destroyed by the residers of that locality. The fault of the telephone is only due to the careless construction work done by the people of the locality. In October 2000 the line posts were dismantled and some were re-erected and from that period onwards there no allegations from any consumers side. The fault of the meter from 1/8 to 22/12/2000 is enclosed as a documents if any fault effected earlier that is not a countable due to the erasel of the recording of the computer during June 2000. The rebate on rent was recommended for the period exceeding 7 days and sanctioning letter of the Account Officer is also produced. <br /> <br /> 4. The telephone became faulty in certain occasions in between June 2000 to October 2000 there is no latches on the part of the Opposite Party in making the telephone functioning properly. For the rectification and renovation of the telephone line the Opposite party spent Rs.60,000/- and more over the Opposite Party has also offered rebate for the period when the numbers were not in service. The Opposite Party is not liable to pay the compensation to the Complainant if any damages is to be recovered it is to be collected from the road committee. The complaint is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 5. An additional version was filed by the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> 6. The points in consideration are:<br /> 1.Whether the Opposite Party has done any deficiency in service?.<br /> 2.Relief and costs.<br /> <br /> 7. Point No.1:- The Complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A4 are marked. The Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. The case of the Complainant is that the telephone connection of the Complainant was not working regularly it was in disorder from time to time. The Opposite Party was not ready to rectify the mistake and to render the service free from fault. According to the Opposite Party telephone line drawn to the house of the Complainant passes through the road where the construction work going on. The posts which carried the cable were buried in soil due to the careless road construction. The passengers along the road disturbed the cable connection and the intermittent disorder was beyond the control of the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> 8. The Opposite Party admitted that the service of telephone to the Complainant was hindered till the cable was replaced. The allegations of the Complainant due to the disorder in the telephone connection the Complainant had to suffer grate deal losses are not established in evidence. The relevant pages of the complaint book of Ext.A1 and the complaints written subsequently shows that the telephone service was hindered. It is not proved in evidence the duration in which the telephone was not working properly. The Opposite Party has already gave a rebate for a non function of telephone but it does not gratify extent of period of non function. Ext.A4 shows that for a period from 1.07.2000 to 31.08.2000 the concession of Rs. 25/- was given. The rent bimonthly charge upon the Complainant for the use of telephone was Rs.200/-. The Opposite Party further admitted that if the telephone service was non functional more than one week concession of the rent for the period can be given. In several occasions as per the documents produced the telephone found to be non functional. The entries in Ext.A1 the complaint book of the telephone makes it cristal clear that the non function of telephone sustained for a longer period but how long that continued cannot be estimated by evidence. Perusing the document and the period deposed in evidence we consider the non functional period of telephone comes for the period of 3 bills which means six months. The rent <br /> payable by the Complainant for the period of 6 months is Rs.600/- during the relevant period. The amount of Rs.600/- paid by the Complainant in the year 2000 for a period of 6 months that is Rs.600/- is to be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant. The non supply of faultless service to the Complainant is a deficiency in service. The point No.1 is found accordingly.<br /> <br /> 9. Point No.2:- According to the Opposite Party the renewing work of the cable was done after 2002. The telephone disorder cleared only after the installation of the new cable. Ext.A1(a) dated 9.06.2000 is a writing that the phone is in disorder likewise A1(b) shows the telephone is in disorder from 3.8.2000. Apart from the oral testimony of the complainant by the Opposite Party the period for the non function was not drawn out. The Opposite Party collected rent from the Complainant even for the period when the telephone was not working. Period of 6 months in total is estimated when the telephone was not in function for that period the rent charged by the Opposite Party is Rs.600/-. The amount collected for a period of 6 months towards the rent by the Opposite Party is to be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant. The complainant was a government employ in the relevant period. The disorder of the telephone from time to time would have caused hardships and difficulties and other losses to the Complainant and it is to be compensated.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to adjust the rent collected for a period of 6 months to the future bills payable by the Complainant. The Complainant is directed further to give Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards the cost and compensation from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is also directed to adjust the rent of Rs.600/- (Rupees Six hundred only) in the proceeding bills. The cost and compensation is to be paid within one month from the date of this order. <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 25th day of August 2008.<br /> <br /> Contd...6)<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/- <br /> <br /> MEMBER-I : Sd/- <br /> <br /> MEMBER-II: Sd/- <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX:<br /> Witness examined for complainant:<br /> PW1 Gopalakrishnan Nair, Complainant<br /> Witness examined for opposite parties:<br /> OPW1 Raveendran P. G S.D.E. Telephone<br /> Exhibits marked for complainant:<br /> A1 Complaint Book<br /> A1(a) 27th Page of Complaint Book<br /> A1(b) 153th Page of Complaint Book<br /> A1 © 234th Page of Complaint Book <br /> A1 (d) 88th Page of Complaint Book<br /> A1 (e) 93th Page of Complaint Book<br /> A1(f) 108th Page of Complaint book<br /> a1 (g) 115th Page of complaint book<br /> a1 (h) 119th Page of Complaint Book<br /> A1 (i) 130th Page of Complaint Book<br /> A2 AD card<br /> A3 Bill Dt. 18.1.2001<br /> A4 Bill Dt.18.9.2000<br /> Exhibits marked for opposite parties:<br /> Nil