DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELECOM vs SRINARAYAN SINGH

THIS appeal by opposite parties is directed against an order dated 10.7.1995 passed by District Forum, Munger, in Complaint Case No. 234 of 1994 whereby the District Forum has directed the opposite parties-appellants to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 400/- as cost to the complainant (respondent) within 30 days from the date of the order.

IT appears that the complainant (respondent in this appeal) filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging therein that Telephone No. 22291 standing in the name of his father Raghubar Narayan Singh was disconnected on 6.9.1994 on the ground of non-payment of bill when in fact he had already paid the bill on 6.5.1994. He lodged complaint with the Telephone Department on 7.9.1994, 9.9.1994, 13.9.1994 and 19.9.1994. He also lodged written complaint with the S.D.O., Telephone, Munger on 15.9.1994 and ultimately filed complaint before the District Forum for a direction for restoration of the telephone connection forthwith at no extra cost and for payment of Rupees one lac as compensation for harassment caused. Some other reliefs including the relief for cost had been prayed for but the District Forum directed for payment of compensation and cost only as mentioned in para-1 of this order. The opposite parties (appellants) filed written statement and contested the case before the District Forum. Their case was that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not the subscriber of the telephone in question and as such is not a consumer. The telephone was disconnected after giving opportunity to the subscriber to intimate the particular of the payment, if paid against the outstanding bills or to pay the same immediately. When no information was received from the subscriber, the telephone was disconnected and hence no question of payment of compensation. Subsequently when the complainant gave particulars of payment, his telephone was restored without any restoration charge.

As will appear from para-5 of the memo of appeal, affidavit had been filed before the District Forum on behalf of both the parties in support of their respective cases. At the time of hearing of this appeal no one appeared on behalf of the respondent and hence it has been heard ex-parte. The question to be considered is if the impugned order calls for any interference by this Commission or not.

IT is not disputed that outstanding bills concerning the telephone in question had been paid on 6.5.1994 and the telephone was disconnected on 6.9.1994. IT means that the subscriber of the telephone was not a defaulter. As per case of the opposite party, the subscriber had been given opportunity to intimate the particular of payment of outstanding bills or to pay the same immediately but no information was received from the subscriber and then the telephone was disconnected. In the memo of appeal the case of the complainant has been stated. From the case of the complainant as stated in para-4 of the memo of appeal it would appear that no opportunity had been given to the subscriber either to intimate the particulars of payment or to pay any outstanding bill. There is simply oath against oath on this point. This much is, however, apparent that the subscriber was not defaulter and that being so, the disconnection was not justified. That being so, the disconnection amounted to deficiency in service. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that subscriber of the telephone in question was Sri Raghubar Narayan Singh, the father of the complainant, and hence the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the term as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and that being so, the complaint is not maintainable. As will appear from para-5 of the memo of appeal, subscriber Raghubar Narayan Singh had filed affidavit in support of the case as made out in the complaint. The word consumer has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. A plain reading of the definition will show that the Statute visualises two distinct categories of consumers - the first one is the original consumer who buys the goods or hires the services for consideration. The definition, however, does not stop at that. It proceeds further to bring within its ambit a second category namely, any beneficiary of such goods or services when the same are availed with the approval of the original consumer. The definition is thus as inclusive and extensive one. Designedly it brings within its scope not only the person who has the privity of contract with the person hiring out the services but also subsequent beneficiaries thereof even though the latter may not be a party to the original contract or have a direct nexus therewith. The complainant being the son of the subscriber and being beneficiary is undoubtedly a consumer and hence his complaint is maintainable. So there is no merit in the above contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants.

THE District Forum has directed for payment of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that there was no evidence of loss to support the grant of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. In the impugned order the District Forum has referred to certain medical prescriptions in the name of the father of the complainant but the relavancy thereof is not clear from the impugned order. As it appears from the impugned order, the complainant had alleged that he had to run to the office of the opposite parties several times to get his telephone restored but the expenses incurred in doing so have not been disclosed in the impugned order. THE fact that the complainant had to run to the office of the opposite parties several times has not been denied. In going to the office of the opposite parties and specially to the office of Divisional Engineer at Bhagalpur, the complainant who resides at Munger must have incurred some expense. Since the amount of expenditure on this score has not been disclosed, token amount of Rs. 500/- (Rs. five hundred) as compensation will meet the ends of justice. So the direction of the District Forum for payment of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation is modified accordingly. The District Forum has directed for payment of Rs. 400/- as cost. The amount of cost allowed by the District Forum being reasonable does not call for any interference by this Commission. Having regard to the above discussion the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is modified. The opposite party-appellants will pay only Rs. 500/- (five hundred) as compensation to the complainant (respondent). Subject to the above modification in the amount of compensation, this appeal is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to cost of this appeal. Appeal dismissed.