KRISHAN DAS AGGARWAL vs Union of India

-THE present Revision Petitioner Shri Krishan Das Aggarwal had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bareilly under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In his complaint, he made the following grievances in respect of alleged deficiency in rendering of service by the Telecommunication Department: (a) His telephone had remained out of order from August, 1988 to December, 1989 to June, 1990. It was again put of order on the date he had filed the complaint before the District Forum. THE complaint was filed on 17th August, 1990. (b) THEre were three bills dated 7.11.1989, 5.5.1990 and 5.7.1990 in respect of the local calls in the amount of Rs. 100/- Rs. 468/- and Rs. 1,376/- respectively and the Petitioner had deposited the money of the three bills ''under protest'' and the bills were not corrected in spite of complaints. THE contention of the petitioner was that he always used his telephone within the limits of free calls.

THE Petitioner, therefore, claimed the following relief;" (i) Refund of the payment of three/bills of Rs. 100/- Rs. 468/- + Rs. 1,376/-. (ii) Damages of Rs. 5,000/-. (iii) Refund of rent for the period when the telephone was out of order.

After considering the evidence, the District Forum passed the following order: "THE Opposite Parties are directed to prepare the Bills dated 7.11.1989, 5.5.1990 and 5.7.1990 after calculating the average of twelve preceding months and to adjust the amount deposited by the complainant. In case, the complainant has deposited the amount in excess, that should be adjusted in future Bills to be prepared within one month from the date of the Order. THE rents for the months in which the phone was out of order be adjusted in future bills. That should also be done within a month from the date of the Order. THE rent will not be charged from the applicant. THE Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as damages to the applicant within a month from the date of the Order".

FEELING aggrieved with that order the Opposite Parties i.e. Union of India and Others filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum in respect of adjustment of the rent for the months in which the telephone was out of order and about adjustment of excess billing. However, about the damages awarded by the District Forum, the State Commission remarked that no case had been made out for the grant compensation. To that extent the order of the District Forum was modified. The complainant has filed present petition and his main grievance is that the order of the State Commission disallowing the compensation/damages to him is not a speaking one as by merely remarking that ''no case for compensation had been made out'' the Commission has disallowed the award of compensation made in his favour by the District Forum. We are of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner has force. The District Forum has given reason for allowing compensation to the Revision Petitioner. His telephone remained out of order for a very long period and as averred by him it was not put in order in spite of written complaints. The complainant stated before us that he is a business man and his main business is with the help of telephone. He described himself as a ''canvassing agent''. He explained that term by stating that he enquire about rates of commodities and orders are placed through telephone and he suffered huge damages on account of the non-functioning of the telephone. We hold that the State Commission was not justified in disallowing the compensation awarded to the complainant by the District Forum without giving reasons.

For the foregoing reasons we accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the order of the State Commission to the extent it modified the order of the District Forum and restore the order of the District Forum allowing compensation to the Revision Petitioner. The Revision Petitioner is also entitled to the costs of the present petition which we assess at Rs. 500/- The respondents would comply with the order within two months of the receipt of this order. Appeal allowed.