BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED vs Harnam Singh Awasthi

THIS appeal has been directed by the respondent against order dated 3.2.2005 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby complaint filed by the respondent was accepted and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 8,000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment, professional and financial loss, besides Rs. 1000 as costs of litigation, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the respondent Sh. H.S. Awasthi (complainant) is practising Advocate at Chandigarh. He had taken mobile connection No. 9417034586 from the appellant and had been regularly paying his bills. However, all of sudden, on 10.9.2004 his outgoing calls were barred by the appellant. He contacted the appellant on landline telephone and complained that his outgoing calls had been unreasonably blocked but there was no response from it. He also served notice dated 20.9.2004 under certificate of posting, C -2. The appellant contacted him on telephone on 22.9.2004 and gave false assurance that his outgoing calls would be restored as the same had been barred by some fault in the exchange. However, nothing was done. Again on 24.9.2004, he served notice C -3 upon the appellant under certificate of posting, demanding Rs. 1000 per day as compensation for barring his outgoing calls. It was next averred by the respondent that he was a practising Advocate and had to remain in constant touch with his clients for which the mobile phone was handy and since outgoing calls had been unreasonably barred by OP, so he was grievously handicapped in contacting his clients which caused him mental and physical harassment besides professional and financial loss.

WITH these allegations, he claimed Rs. 1000 as compensation per day for harassment and deficiency in service and Rs. 2000 as costs.

THE appellant filed reply. It admitted that respondent was having mobile connection No. 94170 -34586 from it, but denied other allegations and stated that outgoing calls were never disconnected on 10.9.2004, or at any time afterwards. It further denied that it had received any complaint from the respondent on landline telephone or through legal notices dated 20.9.2004 or 24.9.2004. It further stated that the respondent had not suffered any mental and physical harassment or financial loss, so, it was not liable to pay any compensation. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.

AFTER hearing Counsel for the parties, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T. Chandigarh, vide its order dated 3.2.2005 accepted the complaint by holding that outgoing calls of Mobile Connection No. 94170 -34586 of the respondent were barred for 18 days from 10.9.2004 to 28.9.2004 and as such awarded Rs. 8,000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment, professional and financial loss and Rs. 1000 as costs of litigation. The appellant was directed to comply with the order within two months from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. has filed the present appeal. We have heard Counsel for the appellant Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate along with Mr. Jatin Talwar, Advocate, Mr. H.S. Awasthi, Advocate, respondent in person and carefully gone through the record.

IT is an admitted fact that the appellant had granted facility of mobile telephone connection No. 94170 -34856 to the respondent (complainant). The allegation of the respondent is that his outgoing calls on the aforesaid mobile telephone were barred from 10.9.2004 to 28.9.2004. Further case is that he served notices dated 20.9.2004 and 24.9.2004 through certificate of posting, upon the appellant and even made complaint on his landline telephone but no action was taken. The case of the appellant is of total denial. Appellant did not produce in the District Forum printout to show that outgoing calls on the mobile telephone of the respondent during the aforesaid period were not barred. The respondent has affirmed by way of his affidavit that he served notices, C -1 dated 20.9.2004 and C -3 dated 24.9.2004 under certificates of posting C -2 and C -4 respectively. Presumption of truth is attached to the certificate of posting under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act and that these notices must have reached the appellant. The very fact that the appellant had denied the receipt of the notices again suggests that it has purposely concealed the true facts. If the appellant had not barred the telephone of the respondent for about 18 days for outgoing calls, then there was no reason for him to make complaint to the appellant or to file the present complaint. The printout for incoming calls produced on file shows that during the aforesaid period respondent had received only incoming calls. Even the chart produced by the appellant for the outgoing calls at the appellate stage, although not allowed to be produced on file by way of additional evidence shows that from 18.9.2004 to 26.9.2004 no outgoing call was made. Even, on 17.9.2004 there is a call of only 11 seconds and only 0.20 paise have been charged, which shows that it was no call. Even on 10th, 11th, 12th September, 2004 there was no outgoing calls. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that mobile phone of the respondent remained out of order as it was not properly working for outgoing call during the period 10.9.2004 to 28.9.2004 and the version of the appellant that it was in working order during the aforesaid period is not believable, hence, the respondent has been rightly awarded Rs. 8000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment, profession and financial loss, which is just and reasonable and, in fact, on the lower side.

FOR the foregoing reasons, there is no force in the appeal and as such same is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.