AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE case of the complainants is that they had their telephone shifted from their old residence to a new residence. While giving the connection the opposite party the Telecom Department have not connected the telephone with sufficient number of pole and hence wires were low lying. While so on 16.10.1996 a burglary took place in their house at 11.45 p.m. While the burglars were trying to enter into the house the complainants were trying to inform the police through phone but the culprits had cut the connection wire outside. THErefore they were not able to contract the police. Before the complainant''s relations to whom they had earlier phoned came, the culprits took away the ransom of jewels, cash and they also damaged the furniture. On account of this the complainants have suffered heavily. Only because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Telecom Department in not giving the wire connection in the proper manner and the wire was lying low within the hand reach the burglars were able to cut it to disconnect the phone, the complainants could not contact the police. Thus alleging the complaint has been filed for compensation claiming amounts under different heads all totalling to Rs. 17,50,000/-
THE opposite parties deny the complainant''s case that the telephone wire was low lying. THEy contend that the poles were well erected and the wire was at the height of 15 ft. THErefore it is not correct to say that the wire was at the hand reach and that enabled the culprits to cut the wire. THErefore it is not correct to say that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The point that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so what reliefs can be granted to the complainant.
Point: There is no evidence let in on the part of the complainants that the wire was low lying as pleaded by them. It must be remembered that the opposite party deny the allegation that the wire was low lying and they contend that the wire was at the height of 15 ft. They further contend in the written version that after the alleged incident, there was ho complaint to them from 16.10.1996 till 2.12.1996 when they received a notice from the complainants'' Counsel. The learned Counsel appearing for the complainant during the course of the arguments sought to file some documents dated 15.10.1995 and 2.8.1996. But no reason as to why these documents have not been filed earlier is given. Therefore those documents cannot be relied on. As such there is no evidence let in by the complainant that as alleged by them the connecting wire was low lying and that enabled the culprits to cut the wire.
IT is then argued by the complainants that they had given a complaint to the Voluntary Consumer Association and they had inspected the place. But there is no evidence regarding this. In these circumstances, with the evidence available we are not able to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In this view of the matter the complaint is dismissed. However, we give liberty to the complainants to move the Civil Court if they so desire for any remedy. There will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.