- News>
- Newspapers
Service on hold? Get money from the teleco : The Hindustan Times
If the telephone department fails to restore your telephone connection despite repeated complaints, don`t go into a frenzy. It may have to fork out a sizeable compensation for its inaction.
If the telephone department fails to restore your telephone connection despite repeated complaints, don't go into a frenzy. It may have to fork out a sizeable compensation for its inaction.
After four years on hold, a subscriber in Abohar, Punjab, whose telephone remained out of order for more than a month, has won a legal battle against the Department of Telecom.
Directing the telephone department to pay Rs 20,000 as damages and Rs 2,000 as litigation cost to the subscriber, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) said: "The telephone department cannot junk its subscribers the way it has been done in the present case. It is a clear case of deficiency in service." The commission noted that the department did not pay any heed to the subscriber, H.K.L. Kamboj, who had filed 10 complaints between April 20 May 10, 1998. After his appeals to the district consumer court and the State Consumer Commission were dismissed, Kamboj petitioned the NCDRC. The telephone department said that an official had verbally informed the subscriber that his phone was inoperative as the department was converting the old exchange to the new electronic exchange.
However, the NCDRC rejected the contention, saying: "If the setting up of a new exchange required a great deal of time in which the phone remained inoperative, it was the department's duty to inform the subscriber." The commission said the department could have at least issued a circular informing subscribers that their lines would be dead during the conversion period.
Directing the telephone department to pay Rs 20,000 as damages and Rs 2,000 as litigation cost to the subscriber, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) said: "The telephone department cannot junk its subscribers the way it has been done in the present case. It is a clear case of deficiency in service." The commission noted that the department did not pay any heed to the subscriber, H.K.L. Kamboj, who had filed 10 complaints between April 20 May 10, 1998. After his appeals to the district consumer court and the State Consumer Commission were dismissed, Kamboj petitioned the NCDRC. The telephone department said that an official had verbally informed the subscriber that his phone was inoperative as the department was converting the old exchange to the new electronic exchange.
However, the NCDRC rejected the contention, saying: "If the setting up of a new exchange required a great deal of time in which the phone remained inoperative, it was the department's duty to inform the subscriber." The commission said the department could have at least issued a circular informing subscribers that their lines would be dead during the conversion period.