Har Kishan Lal Kamboj                             ---- Petitioner
                   Vs.
G.M., Telephones, Ferozepur                    ---- Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, President, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K.Mehra, Member, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member.

Justice D.P.Wadhwa, J. (President)

         This Petition is by the complainant. He is a subscriber of telephone at Abohar in the State of Punjab. His telephone remained dead for 37 days. Alleging deficiency in service against the General Manager, Telephones, Ferozepur, complainant sought compensation. His complaint was, however, dismissed by the District Forum. His appeal to the State Commission met the same fate.

       Aggrieved, he has come to the National Commission. There is no dispute that telephone of the complainant-petitioner remained dead for 37 days. It was not made operative in spite of 10 complaints lodged by the petitioner right from 20-4-98 to 10-5-98. Petitioner alleged that he is a rich farmer holding 20 acres of irrigated land and it was imperative that he should have a telephone which is working.

       On notice being issued opposite party-respondent filed its version. Its defence was that telephone of the complainant remained out of order w.e.f. 3-4-1998 to 9-5-1998 due to break down of the jumper in the line because of the fact that exchange was converted from the old exchange to the new exchange. Accepting the stand of the respondent, the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed.

       When the matter came up before us we said we would like to know from the respondent if the telephone of the petitioner was the only one out of order or the telephones of other persons were also not working during the period. It was submitted that there were as many as 3000 lines which were being converted to 9000 lines with the result that large number of telephones remained out of order. We required that all these facts should be brought on record on affidavit. An affidavit of Mr. B.D.Khunger who was working as SDO(Phones), Abohar in the year 1998 was filed. He said that record of telephones faults was not available. But since there was work of conversion of the exchange nearly about 1000 telephon lines remained inoperative. We again required the respondent to file an affidavit if the petitioner or the persons similarly situated whose telephones were to remain inoperative for 37 days were informed on account of the change of the telephone exchange. In response to this, affidavit of Ashok Kumar, SDO(Phones) has been filed. He says that he verbally informed the petitioner that fault on phone was due to conversion of old exchange to new C-DOT electronic exchange and due to involvement of bulk numbers affected due to conversion and further that the field staff also duly informed the subscriber-petitioner in this regard. It is also mentioned that rent rebate for the period telephone remained faulty has been given by the department as per rules.

       This affidavit does not improve the situation. Petitioner here is a subscriber of telephone and there are thousands of others. If setting up of new exchange required great deal of time in which the telephone of the subscriber was remained inoperative, it was the duty of the department to inform the subscriber. This was not done. The least the department could have done was to issue a circular informing the subscribers of their telephones remaining out of order on account of conversion of telephone exchange. Mr. Ashok Kumar in his affidavit says that petitioner was orally informed. This could not be correct. Petitioner lodged as many as 10 complaints and in his complaint he has given complaint numbers. If he had been informed earlier, there was no occasion for him to lodge the complaints day after day. Telephone Department cannot junk its subscribers the way it has been done in the present case. It is clear case of deficiency in service. Petitioner is entitled to compensation and cost of these proceedings which we assess at Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively. This petition is, therefore, allowed, orders of the State Comission and District Forum are set aside.