Mr. Justice B.N. Sinha, President—This appeal is directed against order dated 20th November, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Patna in Complaint Case No. 239 of 1992 in which the appellant here was the O.P. and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.

2. The complainant filed a case before the District Forum alleging that her telephone No. 654615 was dead from 22.7.91 to 15.11.91 and she complained to the opposite party several times but of no avail and the department gave her a rebate of Rs. 100/-only in the rental of the telephone. The complainant, therefore, filed the case claiming compensation for the inconvenience caused to her due to this negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed the written statement which runs in three paragraphs only and therefore is being quoted below:—

(a) That the instant complaint case has been filed for grant of compensation with regard to non-functioning of the telephone of the complainant from 22.7.91 to 15.11.91.

(b) That the case of the complainant have been thoroughly examined by the competent person and it was found that due to technical reason, the telephone of the complainant had not worked from 15.10.91 to 8.11.91 and for which a rental rebate of Rs. 100.00 has already been granted the bill dated 1.12.91.

(c) That under the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that this case may please be closed.

4. It is clear from the facts stated above that the complainant had alleged that his telephone was dead from 22.7.91 to 15.11.91 and the opposite party admitted that it was so from 15.10.91 to 8.11.91 for which rental rebate of Rs. 100.00 had been given to the complainant in bill dated 1.12.91. But the opposite party has not denied in his written statement the allegation of the complainant that his telephone was dead from 22.7.91 to 14.10.91 and again from 9.11.91 to 15.11.91. Moreover, the reason assigned by the opposite party in his written statement for the telephone being dead from 15.10.91 to 15.11.91 is vague. It has been mentioned in the written statement that it was dead due to technical reason. But what was that technical reason has not been mentioned by the opposite party in his written version. The opposite party has not denied in his written statement that the complaints were made by the complainant regarding her telephone being dead, under these circumstances there appears no reason to disbelieve the allegations made by the complainant that her telephone remained dead during the period from 22.7.91 to 15.11.91 and in spite of complaint being made by the complainant with regard thereto the O.P. failed to take any action.

5. Hence we find that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs. 2000/in respect thereof which appears quit appropriate taking into consideration the fact that the telephone being none operative for about months must have caused much inconvenience to the complainant.

In the result the appeal is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is hereby confirmed. The appellant is directed to pay Rs. 500/(Five hundred) only to the respondent as cost.

Appeal dismissed with cost.

s