MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED vs SURESH KUMAR SAIGAL

THE present appeal has been filed against the order of District Forum, Udyog Sadan, New Delhi dated 23.9.1999 passed in Complaint Case No. 453/1997 - entitled Shri Suresh Kumar Saigal v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

THE relevant facts pertaining to the present appeal, are that the respondent had preferred a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') before the District Forum praying for exemplary deterrent punishment and Rs. 1,000/- per day as damages against the appellant for the period his telephone remained out of order together with compensation on account of the mental agony undergone by him. The case of the respondent before the District Forum was that telephone No. 6428421 was installed at his premises and the telephone instrument of the respondent became defective on 20.7.1996. As such the respondent was unable to make any out-going calls for the period from 20.7.1996 to 22.8.1996. The said telephone instrument was, however, replaced on 22.8.1996 but barely few hours after installation of the new instrument, it became out of order and remained non-functional from 22.8.1996 to 19.9.1996. The respondent, therefore, lodged several complaints but despite repeated visits and reminders, the same could not be rectified and as such the respondent had to undergo lot of mental tension and harassment on account of the fact that he being a patient of Diabetes and Hypertension and his 77 years old mother, being a patient of Asthma needed constant medical attention but on account of the faulty service of the appellant, the respondent and his wife could not make the necessary calls to the doctors and relatives and as such had sought the redressal of their grievances by filing a complaint before the District Forum.

The appellant in his reply/written version filed before the District Forum had admitted the fact that on investigation and scrutiny of the fault history and FNMR in respect of the telephone in question, the calls were found to be on the lower side and as such a rental rebate was allowed for the period 22.7.1996 to 19.9.1996 and the said amount was to be refunded/adjusted in the future bills of the respondent and as such there being no deficiency in service on its part, the complaint filed by the respondent was liable to be dismissed with costs.

HOWEVER, the learned District Forum on the basis of the material on record held that there had been gross deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and as such directed the appellant, in addition to the waiver of the rental for the impugned period, to pay compensation of Rs. 100/- for every day the telephone of the complainant remained out of order during the period from 20.7.1996 to 19.9.1996 together with Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission.

WE have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties. In the first instance the present appeal, filed by the appellant/MTNL, has been filed much beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The impugned order is dated 23.9.1999 whereas the present appeal has been filed on 3.3.2000. In the application for condonation of delay accompanying the said appeal, the reason assigned for the delay is that after a decision was taken for filing an appeal, the matter was assigned to the concerned Advocate on 22.11.1999 but due to inadvertence the said file got mixed up with other files and could not be traced out by the concerned Legel Assistant of the Legal Cell of the appellant and as such the file could not be handed over to the concerned Counsel in time. It was only on 17.2.2000 that the file in question came to the notice of the Dealing Assistant and the same was sent immediately to the Counsel for preparing appeal along with application for condonation of delay. In this regard it would be pertinent to point out that as per the proviso to Section 15 of the Act, delay in filing an appeal can be condoned only in case this Commission is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within the period of limitation. The reason assigned by the appellant for the delay in filing the instant appeal in no way constitutes "sufficient cause" for the condonation of the delay. Furthermore, the application for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal does not even bear the date on which the certified copy of the impugned order was obtained by the appellant. Even the blanks in the said application have not been filled. Accordingly, since the appellant has failed to explain the delay of more than four months in filing the instant appeal, we are not inclined to condone the same. The present appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the said count alone. However, even on merits, the appellant has no case. It is admitted on the part of the appellant that the telephone remained out of order frequently during the period from 20.7.1996 to 19.9.1996 and on the basis of the low consumption recorded in the FNMR, as well as, in view of the fault history of the telephone in question, rental rebate was offered by the appellant for the said period. Furthermore, no reason has been assigned for the delay in changing the defective instrument of the respondent despite repeated requests and reminders, nor any explanation is forthcoming for the delay in rectifying the telephone line in question when the same went out of order for the period from 22.8.1996 to 19.9.1996. Therefore, not only is there no explanation forthcoming for the slackness of service provided by MTNL but the present appeal has also been filed in gross abuse of process of law and as such deserves to be dismissed with costs. As such we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly the present appeal, filed by the appellant, being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. Cost fixed at Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. The impugned order of the learned District Forum together with the directions contained in this order be complied with by the appellant within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The present appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.