MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs M.P.SHARMA

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 11.4.1997, passed by District Forum-IV, Bunkar Vihar, Nand Nagari, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 394/96/T - entitled Shri M.P. Sharma v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri M.P. Sharma had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring therein that his telephone, bearing No. 2426521 went out of order on 18.3.1994. It was stated that regarding the non-functioning of the above said telephone, the respondent lodged a number of complaints but his telephone could be set in order only on 25.5.1994. In the complaint, filed by the respondent, the respondent Shri M.P. Sharma, while alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-MTNL claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-, another sum of Rs. 5,000/- spent by the respondent on conveyance etc., and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per day for professional loss. In all, the respondent had claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 93,000/-.

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 telephone of the respondent during the relevant period was working normally except for the fortnight ending of 15th April, 1994, wherein only four calls had been registered. Rest of the allegations in the complaint were denied. It was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the complaint, filed by the respondent deserved to be dismissed.

THE learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and on the basis of the above finding has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as damages to the respondent together with a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

A notice of the present appeal was issued to the respondent who has entered appearance through his Advocate and has filed detailed reply. The appellant has filed a rejoinder to the same. In so far as the above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant, is concerned, 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 telephone bearing No. 2426521 was installed at the premises of the respondent-Shri M.P. Sharma and the above said telephone was having STD facility with dynamic control. The grievance of the respondent in the complaint, filed by him, before the District Forum, in nutshell, was that his above said telephone was not working properly for nearly seven months. However, on the basis of material on record it is apparent that the Fortnightly Meter Reading (FNMR) in respect of the above telephone shows that from the date of installation i.e. from 4th August, 1993 to May, 1994 the above said telephone had been working as normal except during the fortnight ending of 15th April, 1994. In the above said fortnight only 4 calls have been recorded. It is also apparent on the basis of material on record that the calling rate in respect of the above said telephone had been ranging between 19 to 129 calls per fortnight depending on the use of the telephone. On the basis of material on record it is also not in dispute that for the fortnight ending on 15th April, 1994, as per the recording made in the FNMR, the telephone in question was not working properly and thus decidedly there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments submitted that the compensation granted by the learned District Forum is on the higher side. Since undisputedly the telephone in question was not functioning properly for the fortnight ending on 15th April, 1994, the compensation of Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. four thousand only), in our opinion, would meet the ends of justice in the given facts. The order of the District Forum, being impugned in the present proceedings, is, therefore, modified to the above extent and it is directed that the appellant-MTNL shall pay to the respondent Shri M.P. Sharma a sum of Rs. 4,000/- together with costs of Rs. 500/- within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order passed by District Forum i.e. 11.4.1997 till actual payment. The appeal, filed by the appellant, stands allowed to the above extent and the order being impugned in the present proceedings is also modified to the above extent. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.