The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and deficiency in providing a telephone connection constitute 'deficiency in service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and may warrant compensation for mental agony and suffering.

Thiru Justice K. Sampath, President—The appeals arise out of C.O.P. No. 25/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvallur. The original complainant filed A.P. No. 328/2005. He passed away pending appeal and his L.Rs. came on record and in the other appeal A.P. No. 469/2003 filed by the opposite parties, the L.Rs. have been brought on record. The complaint came to be filed under the following circumstances:

(a) The complainant had applied for a new telephone connection on 13.1.1998 at No. 4/128, Karanodai, Sholavaram, Chennai-67. New telephone connection was sanctioned and the complainant was informed vide order dated 1.11.1999. The telephone however was not installed. He was asked to wait for another 3 months since there was construction for new telephone exchange at Sholavaram. In the meantime, he shifted his residence to a new address. He sent a letter dated 9.1.2001 to provide telephone connection at the new address namely No. 109, By-pass Road, Redhills, Chennai-52. Connection was not given. On 26.2.2001, he sent a further communication requesting the opposite parties to provide telephone connection or return the deposit. The authorities informed him that the file concerned was misplaced. Subsequently, during his visit, he was told that the file was traced and the said connection was energized at Puzhal. He was informed by the 3rd opposite party that some mistake had occurred and he was requested not to precipitate matters. Having waited for a long time, a letter was addressed to the Chief General Manager for redressal. This was followed by a legal notice. This was responded to stating that the matter was under investigation. Since no action had been taken, the complaint came to be filed.

2. The case of the opposite parties was as follows: The complainant’s application for telephone connection was kept in waiting list. On reaching seniority necessary orders through advice note for new telephone connection was issued and the same was communicated vide letter dated 1.11.1999. After receipt of the order from the headquarters, the exchange authority inspected the complainant’s area for effecting connection. It was found that there was no spare underground cable pair and because of that work could not be taken up immediately. The complainant was duly informed. While so, he had sent a letter dated 21.9.2000 intimating his new address and requesting for connection at the new address. Necessary orders were issued by the competent authority to provide telephone connection at the new place. Connection was given at Puzhal on 23.10.2000 with telephone bearing No. 6321668. The number was changed to 6591669 due to opening of a new exchange. Contradicting the above facts the complainant sent a letter dated 26.2.2001 that new telephone connection was not installed at the new changed address and, therefore, the deposit was to be refunded. After receipt of the said letter, the matter was referred to Vigilance cell for necessary investigation. In the meantime, there were dues for Rs. 17,541 and Rs. 3,194 in the said telephone causing disconnection of telephone line. The Vigilance cell inspected the area and confirmed the installation of telephone at Puzhal and it was understood that in connivance with the complainant a third party had utilized the telephone. The National Highways Authority due to road widening demolished the said building where the said telephone connection was installed. The complainant had not approached the Consumer Forum with clean hands and, therefore, the question of non-installation of telephone and refund of deposit did not arise. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.

3. Before the District Forum Exs. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant and on the side of the opposite party though 3 documents were produced they chose not to participate further in the proceedings and they were set ex parte. Those documents have been shown in the index as D. Nos. 1 to 3.

4. The Distr