Deficiency in service should not be attributed solely based on the occurrence of a service issue, and the complainant must demonstrate sustained loss due to the defect to claim compensation.

Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President—Heard Mr. Mohapatra the learned Counsel for the Telecom Department. None appears for the complainant. We have perused the impugned order and also gone through the various other documents on record.

2. The District Forum has held that the department is liable for deficiency in service with a reasoning that the personnels of the department did not show due cordiality in attending to the complaint of the complainant. It is not disputed that the complainant lodged a complaint with the department that his telephone No. DKL-2370, went out of order on 20.1.1993. We accept the written version of the department that on receipt the complaint, staffs were deputed to rectify the defects, and they found that the defects lay with the cable and there was no defects either in the instrument or the ‘premises of the complainant’. The line was restored on 25.1.1993.

3. Merely because the telephone went out of order, no negligence or deficiency of service should be attributed to the department since nothing is placed on record to show that it was the persons of the department who were responsible for the cable fault. Secondly, when seeking for payment of compensation one has to show that as to how one has sustained loss because of the defect or non-functioning of the telephone line. There is nothing specifically in the complaint petition and once the department has been able to prove that persons were deputed, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service. Further there is no material to show that cable fault which was detected by the staff was because of any negligent act of department. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum but without any cost.

Appeal allowed.

––