MAHANGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs RAJA S. BHOSALE

-THIS is an appeal against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No. 112 of 1991. The said complaint was filed by the present Respondent Mr. Raja S. Bhosale against the present Petitioner. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Bombay. The case of the Complainant was that he had hired the services of the Opposite Party for the use of telephone facility. Initially he was allotted Telephone No. 363171 at Poddar Road. In January, 1990 the Complainant shifted to a new residence at Bhosale Marg. A new Telephone No. 242715 was allotted to him. According to the Complainant though he had STD facility for his telephone he used to receive average telephone bill ranging from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- for every billing cycle. It appears that earlier the new Telephone No. 242715 was in the name of one Shri A.S. Ajgaonkar and the bills were sent to his address and on being informed by him on telephone, the Complainant used to make the payment of the telephone bills. On 1-2-1991 the Complainant received a bill, which was in his own name for an amount of Rs. 34,395.10. That bill also showed Rs. 2,554/- as rental charges from 9th January, 1990 till 30th April, 1991. It also showed an amount of Rs, 1,000/- by way of extension charges. In the opinion of the Complainant the said bill was excessive. He and his wife are practicing lawyers and practically during the whole day nobody is in the house to use the facility of telephone. Therefore, he contended that the recording of 32560 as local calls in respect of the said telephone for the said billing period was a clear indication that the telephone had been tampered with. In that bill charges for two trunk calls one for Rs. 220/- and another for Rs. 112/- were also included which according to the Complainant he had never made. On receipt of the disputed telephone bill, the Complainant approached the Accounts Officer of the Department vide his letter dated 16th February, 1991 bringing to the notice of the said officer the infirmities in the said bill and asked for correction of the same. In reply the Complainant was informed by communication dated 30th March, 1991 that the said bill had been provisionally split up for payment of Rs. 3,852/- and the balance amount was kept in abeyance till the investigation was completed. In order to save excessive billing the Complainant got disconnected his STD facility with effect from 10th April, 1991. Before the representation of the Complainant could be decided by the Department, the Complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission claiming Rs. 1.00 lakhs as compensation for deficiency in the rendering of service by the Department and resultant loss. During the pendency of the complaint the Opposite Party intimated to the Complainant that the disputed bill dated 1-2-1991 was vitiated by a clerical mistake committed while preparing the bill. An affidavit was also filed on behalf of the Accounts Officer explaining that the bill was for Rs. 4,202/- in respect of which Rs. 3,559/- had already been paid by the Complainant on 24-9-1991. The Complainant unnecessarily claimed the compensation by filing the complaint without awaiting the completion of the investigation.

THE State Commission found that the Department was negligent in rendering the services inasmuch as : (i) A wrong bill dated 1-2-1991 was sent to the Complainant while in reality only a small amount was due. (ii) THE bills used to be sent in the name of Shri Ajgaonkar and the complainant used to be intimated on telephone only for the payment of the bill. (iii) Though the Complainant paid the bills regularly in the past even his telephone connection was disconnected on 3-7-1991. During the pendency of the complaint which was filed on 15-5-1991. It may be mentioned here that after a telephonic reminder the Complainant did not pay the bill dated 1-4-1991 and, therefore, the telephone was disconnected on 3rd July, 1991 and when that bill was paid on 4th July, 1991 the telephone was restored on the same date and this fact was brought to the notice of the State Commission by the Opposite Party. (iv) In the absence of written bills addressed to the Complainant oral threats were being given to him for the disconnection of the telephone connection. (v) For fear of disconnection of his telephone the Complainant had to get STD facility disconnected.

The State Commission therefore awarded compensation to the Complainant because he was put to considerable inconvenience due to the negligence on the part of the Department and all the above facts caused sufferance to the complainant. It ordered that the Opposite Party i.e. the Department should pay to the Complainant Rs. 25,000/- as exemplary compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the complaint. Sixty days'' time was given to the Department to pay the above amount from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amount so ordered was to carry interest at the rate of 18% till it is realised.

Feeling aggrieved by that order the Department has come before us in appeal. The main argument of the Department is that when on the representation of the Complainant the bill had been split up and investigations were ordered the Complainant ought not have made haste in filing his complaint before the State Commission. We are of opinion that the said argument has force. After all the Complainant is a former Judge of a High Court and he and his wife are practicing lawyers. When a representation had been made to the Opposite Party, the Complainant ought to have waited for the result. He should not have hurriedly approached the State Commission to ventilate his grievance about the excessive bill. The representation of the Complainant was later on found to be correct by the Department and the amount of the disputed bill was reduced accordingly. There is no grievance of the Complainant about the reduced bill.

THE State Commission appears to have been influenced by the status of the Complainant and therefore awarded exemplary compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000/. THE status of a person is not of much relevance while awarding compensation/exemplary compensation. THE nature of the grievance and resultant loss has alone to be considered. However, considering the fact that the bills were used to be sent by the Department in the name of wrong person and the Complainant apprehending excessive bills in future, got the STD facility disconnected from his telephone, we are of the opinion that he is entitled to some compensation. Accordingly we award Rs. 500/- as compensation. Consequently we partly accept the present appeal and modify the amount of compensation awarded by the State Commission to the extent of reducing it from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 500/. We leave the parties to bear their costs of the present proceedings. Appeal partly accepted.