DIV.ENGG.TELEGRAPHS vs ALOK KUMAR SINGH

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 19th June, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Saran at Chapra in Complaint case No. 185 of 1991 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case leading to this appeal may be briefly stated. THE complainant filed a case before the District Forum at Chapra alleging that he was given telephone connection in August, 1988 by the opposite party and the telephone number was 2907; that thereafter the opposite party had sent inflated bills against which he filed complaints by sending letters but the department never paid any heed to them; that he paid the inflated bills by depositing the amount to save his telephone connection from being disconnected but the opposite party continued sending inflated bills which he was not in a position to pay and ultimately he has alleged that his telephone connection was disconnected in the last week of September, 1990 and that even, thereafter, the bill in respect of his telephone for the period 1.10.90 to 30.11.90 was sent to him as result of which he was mentally harassed. THE complainant therefore filed the complaint petition before the District Forum claiming Rs. 5000/- as compensation against the opposite party for the mental harassment caused to him due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. After being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed written version admitting that the telephone connection of the complainant was disconnected on 11.10.90 and, therefore, after his telephone number was allotted to some other person and that the bills sent to the complainant for the period subsequent to that date was sent by mistake and it was cancelled.

The District Forum on the basis of the ad mission by the part of the opposite party found that there was negligence in service on the part of the opposite party and directed the opposite party to reconsider and revise the bills sent to the complainant for the period prior to 11.10.90 and to restore the telephone connection of the complainant within a month. The District Forum have also awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of the mental harassment caused to the complainant due to negligence on the part of the opposite party.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order passed by the District Forum for revision of the bills sent to the complainant for the period prior to 11.10.90 and for the restoration of the telephone connection are illegal because they are beyond the scope of the reliefs which can be granted by the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act). THEre appears substance in this submission. THE District Forum could not have granted any relief beyond those mentioned in Section 14 of the Act as on that date. Section 14 did not empower the District Forum to pass such order. It has been held by the National Commission in number of cases that no Consumer Court under the Act can grant any relief beyond those mentioned in Section 14 of the Act. It has been held by the National Commission in the case of A.P. State Electricity Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumers Association I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC) that a Consumer Court under the Act can not go beyond the reliefs U/Sec. 14 of the Act and it can not pass an order directing to do something or to desist from doing something. Hence this part of the impugned order directing the District Forum for the revision of the telephone bills and for the restoration of the telephone connection of the complainant is apparently illegal and can not be sustained and therefore they are fit to be set aside. But sending the bill for the period subsequent to 11.10.90 after the telephone of the complainant had been disconnected was apparently a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party in his complaint petition stated that he was unnecessarily harassed and had to undergo mental tension due to this negligence on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party had of course cancelled that bill subsequently but that can not compensate the mental harassment and tension which the, complainant had to undergo. Hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation in respect thereof. But compensation of Rs. 5000/- appears to be excessive. We feel that compensation of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant on that account will serve the ends of justice.

IN the result with the above modification the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is, complainant-respondent a sum of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) only as cost. Appeal partly allowed.