For Complainant          :             Sri Sashidhar Patnaik, Advocate & associates.

For Opp. Party               :             Sri S. Sundaram, Advocate.

                                                                                      -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is a bona fide customer of Landline and Broadband connection bearing No.06853-221829 of the OP and the said connection became dead from 08.11.2017 for which the complainant made correspondence on 08.11.2017, 15.11.2017, 21.11.2-17 & 08.03.2018 for restoration of facilities but till date no action has been taken by the OP and the complainant has not received any reply from the OP.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP he filed this case to direct the OP to restore the facilities and to pay Rs.33, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                         The Opp. Party filed counter along with an additional counter admitting the complainant as their landline and broadband customer and contended that as per complaint made on 08.11.2017 for restoration of telephone line, skilled staff of OP attended the work for restoration of phone and detected cable fault.  It is contended that during Nov.-Dec., 2017 there were some development works like drainage/pipe lines/road repairs going on in the area of the complainant as a result some underground cables were damaged at different places and hence the telephone lines were disconnected which is beyond the control of the OP till the work ended by the authorities.  Denying receipt of any complaint dt.15.11.17, 21.11.17 & 08.03.18 in proper mode and shape, the OP contended that they have replaced the underground cables of different area of Sunabeda and the telephone line of the complainant is restored w.e.f. 18.05.18 and the telephone line of the complainant is working in good condition.  The OP also further contended that they have allowed rebate of Rs.2307/- on 09.06.2016 for the fault period in favour of the complainant.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                         Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The complainant has filed affidavit.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                         In this case it is a fact that the complainant is a subscriber to landline and broadband connection bearing No.06853-221829 and the said facility was out of order from November, 2017 to May, 2018.  It is also a fact that the complainant has intimated the fact of non functional of telephone line to the OP on 08.11.2017.  Upon complaint, the OP staff have inspected the site and found cable fault due to road and drainage work undertaken by other authorities.

5.                         It is seen that the complainant has sent another complaint on 15.11.2017 to the email Id

6.                         On 21.11.2017 he sent a complaint to OP through Dolphin Courier Service vide Consignment No.1881 seeking early solution in the matter.  Further through another complaint dt.08.03.2018 through

7.                         The OP in its counter stated that except complaint dt.08.11.2017 they have not received other three complaints as alleged by the complainant, though proper mode of putting complaint is available to the customers.  In this case, as per record available, the complainant has sent two emails to one

8.                         It is a fact that the phone of the complainant was out of order from 06.11.2017 to 18.05.2018 and the OP has allowed rebate of Rs.2307/- and this fact is not disputed one but it is a fact that due to non repair of phone line for such a longer period, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony.  It is a settled principle of law that if any construction activity is going on in a particular area, the OP is to remain alert in order to prevent any damage to the underground cable of telephone.  Due to insufficient awareness and alertness of the telephone department, the poor customers suffer.

9.                         The OP in this case has not disclosed as to who is the authority caused the damage and what action has been taken against them.  Whether the OP has been alerted by the said authority before starting the construction activities?  By not adopting any precautionary measure, the OP has committed deficiency in service.  In this case, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony due to such inaction of the OP and hence the complainant is entitled for compensation.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

10.                       Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to pay Rs.3000/- 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 till actual payment.

(to dict.)