Back
GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI
Honble Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President; Mr. Atanasio Monteiro,
Member; Mrs. Subhalakshimi Naik, Member
M/S. ACCUMULATOR MANUFACTURING CO.—Complainant
versus
P.K. KHINDRI & ORS.—Opposite Parties
Complaint No. 35 of 1992 — Decided on 30.12.1992
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant: Nemo.
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Sharma, Advocate.
A consumer is entitled to compensation for deficiency in service.
Headnote:
TELEPHONE SERVICES - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - SHIFTING OF TELEPHONE CONNECTION - DELAY - COMPENSATION - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 14(1)(d) - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a partnership firm, alleged that the Telephone Department (OP) was deficient in its services in shifting the complainant's telephone connection to a new premises and in repairing another telephone connection. The complainant claimed compensation for loss of business, mental stress, and refund of rental charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the OP was negligent in shifting the telephone connection and in repairing the other telephone connection. The court also found that the complainant had been inconvenienced by the absence of telephone facility in his new premises.
Issues: Whether the OP was deficient in its services in shifting the telephone connection and in repairing the other telephone connection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the OP was deficient in its services in shifting the telephone connection and in repairing the other telephone connection. The court also held that the complainant had been inconvenienced by the absence of telephone facility in his new premises. The court relied on the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which define 'consumer' and 'deficiency in service'.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the complaint. The OP was directed to shift the telephone connection to the complainant's new premises and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant. The OP was also directed to refund the rental charges of Rs. 987/- to the complainant.
Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President—This complaint is made by a Partnership Firm against the Telephone Department. It is alleged that the complainant's office-cum-residence was shifted from flat No. F-2 in the first week of September, 1991. It is the case of the complainant that due to the change of accommodation, he wanted his phone connection bearing No. 46994 to be shifted to his new premises. In addition to the aforesaid telephone connection, the complainant also have another telephone bearing No. 43363 at his new office located at Caranzalem Goa. It is the case of the complainant that since 23.3.1992, his Phone No. 43363 is not working for which he made several complaints. The complainant alleged that despite repeated attempts, OP was negligent in repairing Phone No. 43363. It is the grievance of the complainant that although his Telephone No. 43363 was not working, yet he was charged full rental charges of his Telephone No. 45994 amounting to Rs. 23/-.
2. According to the complainant, OPs were deficient in their services to shift telephone to his new premises and for delay in respect of another telephone. The complainant, therefore, claimed direction for shifting of' Phone No. 46994 to his new premises and also claimed compensation of Rs. 60,928/- for the loss suffered in his business. The complainant also claimed Rs. 49,150/- as damages for the mental stress. The complainant also claimed refund of Rs. 987/-.
3. The OP was issued notice by the Commission dated 28.8.92 with permission to file written version within 30 days. The notice was received by OP No. 1. OP did not file written version till the date of passing this order. However, OP filed an affidavit of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 18.9.1992.
4. We have heard the complainant in person and OP by Shri Sharma, Advocate.
5. According to OP, shifting of Telephone No. 46994 was not possible on account of cable fault and the damages caused due to digging by the Electricity Department. It is, further, submitted that Phone No. 43363 was under cable fault from 28.4.1992 till 23.8.1992 and, thereafter between 31.8.1992 to 7.9.1992. It is further stated that the department has done all efforts to ensure installation of underground cable for normal working. Therefore, the OP denied the allegation made by the complainant in the affidavit.
6. Affidavit of the Sub-Divisional Officer filed in support of its case is also vague inasmuch as no convincing reasons are given to explain the delay. Contrary to this, the complainant has supported his allegations made in the complaint by filing an affidavit. On reading the complaint, we find that explanation given by the OP in their affidavit for both telephones were not convincing. We, further, 'find that there was inordinate delay to shift the telephone of the complainant to his new place for no convincing reasons.
7. We also find that the complainant has been availing telephone facility of the telephone in question and thus he is a consumer of the services rendered by OP for consideration. The complainant as a consumer wanted to avail telephone facility at his new residence. Denial on the part of OP to shift telephone connection for such a long period amounts to deficiency in service of OP. From the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the delay on the part of OP to shift the telephone to the new premises of the complainant is an act of negligence. The only reason given by the OP that both telephones were under cable fault due to excessive rains cannot be accepted. Looking to the long lapse of period, it cannot be said that all the while cable fault was due to rains. It is well known that rainy season in Goa is from June to September. Thus, we find that the excuses put forth by OP are not enough to condone the delay in shifting the telephone. We are, therefore, inclined to grant relief to the complainant of shifting his telephone to the new premises.
8. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 60,928/- as compe
