Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Rajesh Jain

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2003 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) along with cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand).

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant was a consumer of telephone No. 245500. On 24.1.2003 his telephone was disconnected by the appellant without any information. It is alleged that there were no dues outstanding against the complainant. When the complainant contacted the appellant, he was told that his telephone has been diconnected due to non-payment of the bill of the telephone No. 241412, which belongs to his father. THE complainant several times informed the appellant that he has no concern with his father. He requested to connect his telephone. THE appellant admited that the telephone of the complainant was disconnected due to non-payment of the bill of the telephone of his father but his telephone was restored on 11.2.2003 and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed. The complainant filed the copy of the bill of his telephone, receipt of deposit, copy of letter of opposite party and document regarding the sale of his shop along with his affidavit. The opposite party filed the affidavit in support of its allegations in the written statement.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The complainant in support of his allegation filed the judgment of the Hon''ble Karnataka Commission reported in 2002 (2) CPR 113, Sub-Divisional Officer, Telephone v. Sh. J.B. Jain, in which it has been held that there are dues against the bill of the son, then also the telephone of the complainant cannot be disconnected even if they are residing in the same house. During pendency of the appeal, the telephone of the complainant was restored. The telephone of the complainant remained disconnected only from 24.1.2003 to 11.2.2003, i.e., 18 days. The document filed by the complainant regarding the sales of his shop is not to be considered because if that is to be taken into account, then the telephone of the complainant is working for commercial purposes. It is true that the telephone of the complainant remained disconnected from 24.1.2003 to 11.2.2003 and it is definitely deficiency in service of the appellant.

THE complainant has claimed compensation for business loss. In our view the complainant cannot get any compensation for business loss. We are also supported by the ruling reported in I (1992) CPJ 228 (NC), M/s. Gauri Shankar Dokania and Co. v. Ministry of Finance and Others., in this ruling details have been given of what type of relief the District Forum cannot grant in which at point (F) there is also loss of business for which no compensation can be granted by the District Form. It is true that the telephone of the complainant was disconnected due to deficiency in service and for that he is entitled to get some compensation. The compensation as awarded is definitely very high. In the circumstances as such we find it proper to reduce the amount of compensation to Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and cost of litigation to Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only). ORDER The appeal is hereby partly allowed and partly dismissed. The order under appeal is modified to the extent that the complainant shall get a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation and a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as cost of litigation. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal partly allowed.