SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Complainant is the subscriber of telephone No.271867 of Karimannoor Telephone Exchange. The said telephone became out of order on 15th December 2006. The complainant several times booked the complaint through telephone but there was no response from the opposite party. After that the complainant went over the office of the 2nd opposite party and a written complaint was given through the complaint register book kept in the office of the opposite party. Then the telephone became partially working. In the morning between 10 am to 11 am and in the evening 5 pm to 5.30 pm the telephone showed out of order. So the complainant telephoned the matter in Telephone Nos. 272400, 272020 and 198, several times but there was no response. The complaint of the complainant was not rectified after one month. Then the complainant was constrained to sent an advocate notice on 16.0.12007 to the Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Thodupuzha. The Divisional Engineer, Thodupuzha received the notice on 17.01.2007. After that the telephone became completely out of order. The complainant's two children were studying at Bangalore and his father was laid up due to old age and disease at that time. The complainant usually contacted to his children and to his brother contacted to him for his father's illness in night time through this telephone. The opposite party did not take care to rectify the mistake of the telephone and it caused mental agony to the complainant and for the deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed. 2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, there is no complaint filed by the complainant to the office of the opposite party stating that the telephone was not working on 15.12.2006 onwards. They have got three complaints in the complaint register on 18.12.2006, 3.01.2007 and on 15.01.2007 about the non-working of the complainant's telephone. The opposite party have taken steps to cure the same and the complaint was closed. On investigation of the case it was found that the complainant's telephone was out of order after 1700 hours, was not in the complaint register or informed to the J.T.O in-charge of the exchange. The specific time in which the telephone was out of order is not specified in any of the complaint. If there was details about the same, action would have taken by the J.T.O. There was no complaint made to opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 regarding the above fact of complaint. No notice was issued to opposite party 1 and opposite party 2. The coplainant's telephone number is under Udumbannoor exchange under the jurisdiction of Karimannoor Sub Division of Karimannor Division. The legal notice is received by the Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Thodupuzha. There was no correspondence to opposite parties 1 and 2. Opposite Party understood the fact only when an intimation served from the Commissioner Advocate on 3.02.2007 and prompt action was taken by the opposite party. After that the number was found working to the full satisfaction of the subscriber. There is no wilful delay in the part of opposite party. The Divisional Engineer visited the premises of the complainant once, SDOT and JTO visited 3 times to verify the functioning of the telephone. Now the telephone is working well and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 and Exts.P1 to P3 and Ext.C1 on the side of the complainant and the testimony of DWs 1 to 3 and Exts.R1 to R7 marked on the side of the opposite party. 5. The POINT :- The opposite party in their written version submitted that telephone No.271867 of Karimannor exchange was provided by the opposite party. So there is no dispute in question whether the complainant is a consumer. The opposite party also admitted that there was complaint in the telephone of the complainant. The complainant's telephone was out of order only in between 10 am to 11 am and in between 5 pm to 5.30 pm. Till filing of the complaint before the Forum, the opposite parties are not aware of specific type of complaint he had met in the past. If the same was mentioned in anywhere in the complaint given to opposite party, they would have taken action to rectify the same. Ext.P1 is the copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant. Ext.P2 is the postal AD card of the same. In the notice it is clearly mentioned that the telephone is out of order in between a specific time. The same was addressed to the Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Thodupuzha. The 2nd opposite party in his version it is stated that they are not aware of the same. That cannot be believable. As per the evidence of DW1, the 2nd opposite party delivered that if a complaint or a letter is received in his office in the name of a higher officer he will at the same time forwarded to the higher officer of BSNL. If the same is received in the name of an officer equivalent to his rank he will send to the appropriate officer with a direction. So non-awareness of the advocate notice is unbelievable. Ext.C1 is the commission report filed by PW2. It is very clearly stasted that when the commissioner inspected the disputed telephone the same complaint was seen. It was not working between 5 pm and 5.30 pm. There is no reason to disbelieve the commission report and also from the evidence of DW2 and DW3, it is very clear that they have rectiied the defect of the telephone after getting notice from the commissioner. So it is clear that the telephone was out of order for a long time, even after sending a lawyer notice stating that a complaint will be filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. So it is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party. The complainant was very much needed the services of the telephone at that time because his father was seriously laid up and his children were studying at Bangalore. As per the affidavit filed by the complainant, the telephone was out of order for 48 days. So we think it is fit to give a compensation of Rs.100/- each per day to the complainant for the inconvenience due to non-working of the telephone and Rs.3,000/- for the cost of the petition and other expenses incurred. In the result, the petitiion is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to give Rs.7,800/-(Rupees Seven Thousand and Eight hundred only) to the complainant within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall cary further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of May, 2008
