National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. Gokulanand Sahay, Advocate And Anr. vs The Chief General Manager, ... on 24 July, 2002
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. It is the complainant who is the petitioner before us. His complaint against the Telephone-Department was that his telephone remained out of order for months and in spite of reminders it was not made functional. His complaint was allowed by the District Forum which awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- respondent-opposite parties went in appeal before the State Commission which while upholding the finding of District Forum that there was deficiency in service reduced the compensation to Rs. 1,000/-. Now it is the complainant who felt aggrieved and filed this petition.
2. In answer to show cause notice issued, respondents have filed their reply. It is admitted that the telephone remained out of order for some period, but no reasons had been given why the telephone was not made functional and why immediate steps were not taken to restore the service. Telephone these days is necessity. It is the duty of the Telephone Department to see that telephones properly function at all times and there is no slackness in the maintenance of the telephone lines. Petitioner in this case suffered a great deal because during the crucial period when there was birth of a grand child in his family, the telephone was out of order. Once the State Commission held that there was negligence on the part of Telephone Department it should not have interfered in the award of the compensation of Rs. 3,000/- which we otherwise think was not on the higher side. Accordingly we set aside the order of the State Commission and restore to that of the District Forum. This petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner will be entitled to cost which we assess at 2,500/-.