MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs J.K.AGGRAWAL

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 13.9.2000, passed by District Forum (East), in Complaint Case No. 497/98 - entitled Shri J.K. Aggrawal v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE respondent Shri J.K. Aggrawal had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the respondent was running a Rolling Mill in the name and style of KAYCEE Electricals at B-7, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi, manufacturing copper wires, rods, strips etc. It was stated that the respondent was having his godown at 43-A, Dilshad Garden, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. It was further stated that the telephone of the respondent, bearing No. 2283200, installed at B-7, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdrara, Delhi, was on PBX Board with one of the extensions, installed at the godown, situated at 43-A, Dilshad Garden. It was stated that day to day business transactions of the respondent were being carried out from the factory and godown over the telephone extension. It was stated in the complaint, that the telephone extension of the abovesaid telephone, at the godown of the respondent, was out of order for 5 weeks despite the fact that as many as eight written complaints, as detailed in para 4 of the complaint, were made to the various Authorities of the appellant for setting right the extension of the telephone in question. It was stated that besides lodging written complaints, the representative of the respondent also visited the Office of SDO (Phones) and lodged complaints in the ''Complaint Register'' too several times. THE grievance of the respondent, in the complaint, filed by him, before the District Forum, was that despite all efforts, the defect was not removed and as a result of above deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the respondent had suffered heavy loss in business transactions. It was prayed by the respondent, in the complaint, that the appellant MTNL be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as penalty, a sum of Rs. 2,500/- on account of expenses incurred on conveyance and other charges. It was also prayed that the appellant be directed to set in order the telephone extension and in default be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- per day till the rectification of the defect in the telephone. It was also prayed that the appellant be directed not to charge telephone rent and service tax for the period during which the extension remained out of order. It was also prayed that the appellant be directed to give proper service to the consumers and not to harass them. The claim of the respondent, in the District Forum, was resisted by the appellant and in the written statement/written version filed on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the telephone in question being an ''electro mechanical device'' was prone to go faulty at times. It was stated that the complaints received were attended to and defects were rectified in time. It was stated that the complaint filed by the respondent be dismissed being devoid of substance.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that the respondent was a ''consumer'' in respect of telephone No. 2283200 and that the telephone in question remained out of order from 19.2.1998 till 10.12.1998. On the basis of the above findings, the order being impugned in the present proceedings, has been passed by the learned District Forum.

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, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the grievance of the respondent, in the complaint, filed by him was with regard to defect in the extension of the telephone, whereas, the order being impugned in the present proceedings speaks of the telephone being out of order and not the extension. In our opinion, the above contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of substance because there can be no denial of this fact that extension is a part of telephone and if extension is not working properly then it cannot be stated that ''service'', which the appellant is supposed to provide, is defect free service or is not deficient. Moreover, for a common consumer if any part of the telephone including the extension is not working, in such a situation, the service provided is decidedly deficient. Above all, the Consumer Fora, established under the Act, are more concerned with substantial justice rather than technicalities of which a common consumer may not be aware.

THE other limb of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is on a higher side which deserves to be reduced. In our opinion, in the given facts, the above contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is also devoid of substance because it is not in dispute that the telephone in question is installed at the factory premises of the respondent and the extension, which remained out of order, was at the godown of the appellant. THEre can be no denial of this fact that for day to day transaction of the business, the communication between the factory and godown of the respondent, as averred, was absolutely essential in the interest of business of the respondent. THE respondent, in the complaint, as already stated, besides a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had claimed compensation @ 400/- per day. THE learned District Forum, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, has awarded only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation together with Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same, by no stretch of imagination, can be stated to be excessive. No other point is urged or pressed. In view of the position explained above, in our opinion, 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 the appellate powers. THE present appeal, filed 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.