CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (TELECOM-MUNICATION) (LEGAL CELL) vs TEJ NARAYAN NIGAM

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 28 March 2001 · Citation: 2002 1 CPJ 99

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.C.Bhargava , D.D.Bahuguna J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 361 words
1.

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.8.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 213/1991.

2.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant has a Telephone No. 265142. Its previous number was 244409. According to the complainant, this telephone remained defective from 30.12.1990 to 5.4.1991 from time to time. THE complainant has claimed damages and rebate in the rental. The opposite party, in its written version has alleged that the telephone remained defective for 2/3 days on account of fault in card and some time on account of cable fault or D.P. fault.

The learned District Forum after perusing the case of the parties and hearing the parties, came to the finding that there was deficiency on behalf of the Telephone Department, hence it decreed a claim of Rs. 300/- only as damages.

3.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the appellant, Telephone Department, has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Forum. The learned Counsel for the opposite party Mr. V.P. Sharma was heard. None was present from the side of the appellant, even through the information was sent to the appellant on Service Postage Stamp.

4.

WE have perused the grounds of appeal and judgment along with the other documents. The learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that as the telephone remained defective from time to time, therefore, the compensation of Rs. 300/- cannot be said to be on the higher side. It has been mentioned in the judgment that for many times the said telephone remained defective during the period from 30.12.1990 to 5.4.1991 on account of fault in the Card, Cable and D.P. The complainant was deprived of using the telephone in this period for no fault on its part, therefore, the amount of Rs. 300/- as compensation cannot be said to be on the higher side. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.