GYANENDRA JHA vs S.D.O., TELEPHONES

COMPLAINANT is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 6.2.1997 passed by District Forum, Motihari in Complaint Case No. 105/95 with a prayer to raise the amount of compensation and cost of litigation awarded in his favour by the District Forum.

THE brief fact of the case is that complainant is a dealer of LPG in the name and style of Indu Verma Gas Agency at Dhaka, East Champaran. He has a telephone connection No. 31028 subsequently changed to 82354. THE complainant was receiving irregular telephone bill though he was paying regularly when received. THE complainant has received bill which was payable by 5.6.1995 on 12.7.1995 and he paid the amount on 19.7.1995 but in the meantime his line was disconnected on 16.6.1995. THE complainant made protest before the authorities but his line was not restored. THEreafter he filed the case before the District Forum claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- against the respondent-Telephone Department and cost for litigation. THE contention of the complainant was that due to disconnection of the telephone line illegally he had to suffer economic loss in his business besides mental and physical harassment. The Telephone Department appeared and its contention was that before disconnection of the line complainant was informed on 4.7.1995 and 5.7.1995 on telephone but he did not pay the bill, hence the line was disconnected on 16.6.1995 for non-payment.

The District Forum after hearing the parties held the Telephone Department liable for deficiency and found that disconnection of the telephone was illegal and allowed a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- only besides cost.

THE contention of the complainant-appellant before us is that the amount of compensation awarded is meagre in view of the claim made by him when the District Forum has found that there was deficiency on the part of the Telephone Department. It was incumbent to allow him the substantial amount of compensation for his mental and physical and economic harassment. The respondent-Telephone Department appeared and submitted that the order of the District Forum is wrong. There was no deficiency on the part of the Telephone Department. However, the amount of compensation awarded against the respondent is on higher side which does not require any interference.

WE have heard the submissions of the parties and perused the impugned order. The District Forum has held that both the parties have given different dates for disconnection of telephone line. According to the Telephone Department the line was disconnected on 16.7.1995 when the case of the complainant is that it was disconnected on 16.6.1995. The District Forum further held that if the line was disconnected on 16.6.1995 in that case there is no evidence on record that on 4th and 5th July, 1995 the Telephone Department informed the complainant with regard to the payment of the bill. The District Forum also held that the bill in dispute was received by the complainant on 12.7.1995 which he made payment on 19.7.1995, as such, there was no fault on the part of the complainant in not making the payment of the said bill. From the facts stated above, we are of the view that District Forum has rightly held that Telephone Department was deficient in service and disconnection of the line was illegally made. However, we are of the view that amount of compensation of Rs. 3,000/- allowed by the District Forum in favour of the complainant is just and not on the lower side. The District Forum has also awarded Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation which also appears to be reasonable. We do not find any substance in the submission of the appellant-complainant that the amount of compensation should be raised from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. We have no evidence whatsoever in support of this contention of the appellant. The amount of compensation claimed by the complainant appears to be in higher side and arbitrary. Therefore, in the fact and circumstances, the impugned order does not require our interference. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order is hereby confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.