MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs K.K. ELECTRONICS

THE present appeal, filed by the appellants under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 5th December, 2000, passed by District Forum - VII, Sheik Sarai, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 357/2000 - entitled Kay Kay Electronics (Regd.) and Anr. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, beiefly stated, are that respondent No. 2, Mr. Avtar Krishan, in his capacity as sole proprietor of respondent No. 1, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that respondent No. 1 was a subscriber in respect of telephone, bearing No. 5799388, installed at his shop situated at WZ-396, Naraina Village, New Delhi. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that telephone bills in respect of the above said telephone always had been below Rs. 500/- except the bill dated 16th December, 1999, which was for Rs. 9,970/-. It was stated that there was no STD facility in the said telephone and the above said bill was unduly on the higher side. It was alleged that the respondent had approached the functionaries of the appellant to correct that bill, but no action on the complaint/representations of the repondent was taken by the functionaries of the appellant, who instead of correcting the bill, disconnected the telephone in question. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, it was prayed by the respondent, in the complaint filed by the respondents, that the appellants be directed to restore the above telephone connection and be also directed to correct the above said bill, so that payment thereof could be made by the respondents. The claim of the respondents in the District Forum was resisted by the appellants and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellants, it was stated that the bill for Rs. 9,970/- was not on the higher side and had been raised on actual consumption basis, so recorded by the metering equipment of the telephone in question. It was also denied that there was no STD facility on the said telephone. It was stated that on receipt of complaint/representations from the end of the respondents, the matter was enquired into and no defect was found. It was stated that the complaint, filed by the respondents, was liable to be rejected.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and on the basis of the above finding, has directed the appellants to immediately instal the telephone of the respondents without claiming the payment of the disputed bill. The learned District Forum has also directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents for the harassment caused and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. A notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents, who have entered appearance through their Advocate. The respondents have also filed a detailed reply to the memorandum and grounds of appeal, to which a rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the appellants.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record, it is not in dispute that initially a telephone bearing No. 5419388 with STD facility was intalled in the premises in question on 14th August, 1986. However, the STD facility in respect of the above said telephone, on the request of the subscriber, was disconnected by the appellants on 3rd January, 1987. Thereafter, the above said telephone was transferred to a new Telephone Exchange and a new telephone number was provided on 16th February, 1996. On the basis of material on record, it is further apparent that at the time of the said transfer, the subscriber was provided with dynamic STD facility though such a request was not made by the subsciber. The above dynamic STD facility was discontinued on 12.1.2000 after the receipt of a complaint from the subscriber, wherein it was specifically stated that he was not having any STD facility. From the narration of the above facts, it is apparent that in respect of telephone connection of the respondent, STD facility was discontinued w.e.f. 3rd January, 1987 on the request of the respondent and thereafter at the time of the transfer of the telephone to a new Telephone Exchange, if the functionaries of the appellant, without the request of the subscriber, provided such a facility in that telephone, naturally the subscriber was not bound to pay for the STD charges. Therefore, charges for the STD calls made from the said telephone indicated in the impugned bill, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, should be excluded. The learned District Forum was not justified in issuing direction for the restoration of the telephone in question without any payment of the disputed bill. As a matter of fact, directions should have been issued to the appellant to issue a revised bill after excluding the charges for the STD calls reflected in the bill in question. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be modified to the above extent. Now coming to the relief granted by the District Forum, it was argued that the relief given by the District Forum is on the higher side. As already stated, the District Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 1,000/- only. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the compensation and cost of litigation awarded by the District Forum is quite adequate and does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers.

INSOFAR as the above aspect is concerned, the position is that relief to a ''consumer'' by a redressal agency, established under the Act, can be granted only in terms of Section 14 of the Act. Sub-clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act deals with ''compensation'' that can be awarded to a ''consumer'' by a redressal agency established under the Act. The above said provision of the Act reads as under : "(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party."

ON a plain reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is apparent that a ''consumer'' may be awarded compensation for any loss or injury suffered by the ''consumer'' due to the negligence of the opposite party. The Hon''ble National Commission in a recent decision in case Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. H.B. Impex Pvt. Ltd., reported as I (2004) CPJ 13 (NC)=2002 CTJ 106 (CP) (NCDRC), has held in clear-cut terms that where a consumer sues for damages, the loss he suffered as a result of breach of contract, must not be too remote and a distinction has to be drawn between normal and abnormal or unusual loss. In other words, a consumer, in terms of the above provisions, can be compensated only for normal loss and not for any abnormal or unusual or remote loss. With a view to satisfy ourselves we have put a specific query to the learned Counsel for the respondent as to the basis for claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. Though no satisfactory answer to our above query could be given by the learned Counsel for the respondents, but the fact remains that for the above deficiency on the part of the appellants, the respondents decidedly must have been put to some difficulties and the same must have caused some harassment to the respondents. In our opinion, if a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to the respondents, to be paid by the appellants, the same would meet the ends of justice. The order of the District Forum, therefore, deserves to be modified to the above extent also. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal, filed by the appellants, is partly allowed and in partial modification of the impugned order, it is directed : (i) that the impugned bill is hereby quashed and the appellants shall issue within four weeks from the date of this order a revised bill, excluding the charges in respect of STD calls which had been included by the appellants in the bill dated 16th December, 1999; (ii) that within four weeks from the date of receipt of the revised bill, the rspondents shall pay the demanded amount and on such payment being made, the telephone connection in question shall be restored within a week thereafter by the appellants; (iii) that the appellants shall pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondents for the inconvenience and harassment caused; and (iv) that, in addition, the appellants shall also pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondents as cost of litigation. The order being impugned in the present proceedings stands modified to the above extent. The present appeal, filed by the appellants, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.