MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED vs MOHD. SHAKIR

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 7.2.2001, passed by District Forum (Central), ISBT, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2786/1999 - entitled Shri Mohd. Shakir v. THE General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Mohd. Shakir had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that his telephone, bearing No. 7529118, installed at his residence, at A-571/11, Amar Puri, Nabi Karim, Prem Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi was non-functional for the last 15 months despite number of complaints and personal visits to the various functionaries of the appellant. It was further stated that though the above telephone of the respondent was non-functional during the above period yet the appellant without caring to have the same set in order continued to raise bills after every 2 months, which, the respondent continued to pay despite the fact that services of the telephone were never availed of by him. It was stated that the respondent even got issued a legal notice through his Counsel on 29.8.1998 but despite the legal notice the telephone was not made functional. THE respondent, in the complaint, filed by him, besides claiming refund of the amount paid by him, also claimed compensation for the harassment caused to him. The claim of the respondent, in the District Forum, was resisted by the appellant and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the respondent had not mentioned the specific date or the period for which the telephone in question was non-functional. It was also stated in the reply filed on behalf of the appellant that though in the Fortnightly Meter Reading (FNR), no calls had been shown to have been made after 15.9.1997 yet no complaint was filed by the respondent for the non-functioning of the telephone in question. It was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and that the respondent was not entitled to any compensation for the alleged harassment.

The District Forum, vide impugned order, has held the appellant guilty of deficiency in service and on the above ground has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the respondent in addition to a sum of Rs. 500/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent as litigation expenses.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments it is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent did not lodge any complaint about the non-functioning of the telephone in question. His second limb of argument was that the amount of compensation, awarded to the respondent, by the District Forum, vide impugned order, was too exorbitant. As regards the first contention that no complaint was lodged by the respondent about the non-functioning of the telephone in question, the position is that the respondent, in the complaint, had averred that he had made personal visits and had made number of complaints to the various functionaries of the appellant. On the above point the affidavit of Shri M.P. Singh, PRO in the office of General Manager(E), MTNL, filed on behalf of the appellant, before the District Forum and referred to in the impugned order, is of utmost significance. In the abovesaid document, it has been stated that the case of the complainant was investigated thoroughly and a benefit of rental rebate for the period from 1.7.1997 to 15.12.1998 was allowed and the complainant was informed about the same vide letter dated 22.7.1999. From the affidavit of said Shri M.P. Singh, which has been filed on behalf of the appellant, the correctness of which is not disputed even before us it is apparent that a thorough investigation in the matter was carried out by the functionaries of the appellant and thereafter rental rebate was allowed to the respondent. The thorough investigation, as stated in the affidavit of Shri Singh, cannot be suo motu. The same can decidedly be only on the basis of the complaint which may have been lodged by the respondent about the non-functioning of the telephone in question. Secondly, it is apparent that the telephone in question remained non-functional for about 1 years for which rental rebate has been given by the appellant. The above admission contained in the affidavit of Shri M.P. Singh virtually takes the bottom out of the case of the appellant.

AS regards the compensation, as already stated, the District Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. It is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded is too exorbitant. In our opinion, the above argument, advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is also devoid of substance. The telephone in question remained non-functional for a long period of 1 years. Gone are the days when the telephone was a luxury. In the present day situation, the same is neither a luxury nor a comfort but a necessity and the District Forum has given cogent reasons for awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and the same, in our opinion, suffers from no infirmity and cannot be stated to be exorbitant keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. No other point is urged or pressed. In view of the position explained above, the order being impugned in the present proceedings suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.