JAIPRAKASH KESWANI vs BHARTIYA TELENET LTD.

-THIS is an appeal, under Section 15, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (the ''District Forum''). The District Forum has dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 11.7.2006.

COMPLAINANT has stated that he had obtained a telephone connection from the O.P. which is a service provider for phone connections. COMPLAINANT is an arhitect by profession and installed complete computer unit in his office. The said computer unit is connected to the telephone provided by the O.P. It is further averred that on 30.9.2002 a slight explosion occurred while he was working on the computer. Several components of the computer such as PC Monitor, key board, mother board, hard disk, power supply cabinet, were burnt and the telephone also went dead. Computer Engineer was called and the computer was taken to his workshop the next day. After checking the damaged computer, the Computer Engineer also reported the next day that most of the components of the computer had got burnt. It was stated that the damage was caused due to flow of AC current in the phone line. O.Ps. serviceman also visited the next day and repaired the phone. It was only then the complainant came to know that the Distribution Point in the complex had also caught fire and several other phones in the complex were dead at the same time.

It is alleged that the telephone line came in contact with the electric service line. It is alleged that the incident occurred owing to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the O.P.''s staff. Mr. Prateek Parashar, Executive in the O.P.''s office was contacted and a letter demanding compensation was also sent to the O.P. A compensation of Rs. 70,000 towards damages to the computer and the data has been prayed for.

COMPLAINANT has filed affidavits of his own as well as that of Kamlesh Singh, Computer Service Engineer and Shishir Verma, Reader, Government College of Engineering, Raipur in support. Both the experts were also cross-examined on behalf of the O.P. O.P. in reply has admitted that a phone connection is provided by them to the complainant. It is admitted that the phone connection went dead due to short circuit as stated in the complaint which was repaired after the intimation from the complainant. Denying the allegations of negligence it is stated that the phone line works on electricity and that the damage to the computer has occurred due to overloading of electric lines in the complainant''s office. It is also stated that the computer and the phone distribution box were damaged due to flow of excesive voltage from complainant''s electric connection towards the said phone distribution box. This has resulted in rendering several phones dead in the complex. O.P. has filed the affidavits of 2 of his engineers in support of its contentions.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainant assailing the impugned order submitted that the District Forum has dismissed the complaint without proper appreciation of the facts and the material on record. It was submitted that although the complainant had 4 computers in use at the time of incident, the only computer connected to the phone line got damaged. LEARNED Counsel for the O.P. defended the impugned order and prayed for affirmation of the same. It was submitted that the overload has caused the damage and the O.P. is not liable. Affidavit of Kamlesh Singh, Computer Engineer was filed by the complainant in support of his contentions. Kamlesh Singh in his affidavit has stated that a modem connecting computer the telephone line is installed in the computer for using internet. Under normal condition the phone lines work on DC current. In the present instance, AC current flowed into the mother board of the computer through the modem and destroyed modem as well as several other components. Even on cross-examination the witness has categorically stated that in case of high voltage getting into the modem, the components of the computer will be affected. He has also stated that the electrical circuit will not break despite the modem being burnt, as all the parts are interconnected. It is also stated that the telephone wire may not stand 230 volts of electricity but it depends on the quality of the wires. Shishir Verma, Reader, Engineering College, Raipur also in his statement averred that there is a possibility of computer being burnt in case of AC current supply reaching the computer through the modem. On cross-examination, it is categorically stated that in case of flow of electric current from the computer to the modem (the link between the computer and the phone line) the modem itself will be burnt. Witness also further stated that it cannot be definitely said whether the electric supply can reach through the computer into the phone line.

DISTRICT Forum has dismissed the complaint based on the view that the statements of expert witnesses are mere inferences and that this incident has not been proved by adducing factual evidence. No complainant can be expected to furnish eye-witness account of such incidents. Appellants cannot wriggle out of the opinion of an expert witness brought out by their cross-examination.

IN Para 3(b)(c) of the complaint, complainant has stated that the Phone Distribution Point got burnt at the time of the incident and several other phones in the complex also went dead. O.P. has chosen not to produce the lineman or maintenance staff or Prateek Parashar whom the complainant claims to have contacted after the incident, to controvert these contentions. We also find that the complaint was filed in November, 2002, five years back. O.P. has not even hinted at any reason why a professional would involve himself in a long drawn legal contest consuming time and energy. Therefore, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. We find that the respondents are liable for deficiency in service. Impugned order is set aside. Respondent/O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 35,000 (Rupees thirty-five thousand only) as compensation for damages to the computer, loss of data and inconvenience. Respondent/O.P. shall bear their own cost of the litigation and also bear that of the complainant which is fixed at Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand only). The above amount shall be payable within a period of two months of this order failing which it will carry interest at 10% per annum. Appeal allowed with costs.