M.T.N.L. vs BHARAT PRODUCTS

THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant/MTNL assailing the order of the learned District Forum-II dated 4.1.1995 in Complaint Case No. 3550/93 entitled M/s. Bharat Products v. THE General Manager, MTNL.

BRIEF facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are, that Shri S.B. Mittal is a partner of the respondent/complainant firm and the two telephones bearing No. 6436835 and No. 6436705 are installed at his business premises. In the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the case of the respondent was that the telephone bearing No. 6436835 remained out of order from 7.2.1993 to 24.2.1993; from 2.3.1993 to 15.4.1993 and from 5.9.1993 to 29.10.1993 and the other telephone bearing No. 6436705 also remained non-functional from 7.2.1993 to 18.2.1993 and from 14.8.1993 to 29.10.1993. It is stated in the complaint that the respondent made numerous written and telephonic complaints and also personally visited the officers of the respondent, but it was with great difficulty and considerable delay that the telephone services of the respondent were restored. The respondent had claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- on account of loss of business and reputation for the periods the telephone remained out of order. A notice of the complaint was received personally by the representative of the appellant/MTNL on 22.2.1994, but the appellant failed to file any written version and as such was proceeded ex parte. The respondent, in support of his case, before the District Forum, has adduced evidence by means of affidavit, which had gone on record unrebutted and unchallenged.

The learned District Forum vide order dated 4.1.1995, being impugned in the present proceedings has granted a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent on account of loss of business as well as mental agony suffered by him. It has been directed by the learned District Forum that the above amount of compensation, which is to be paid by the appellant to the respondent, be recovered from the concerned officials of the respondent at fault.

THE appellant/MTNL has filed the present appeal, challenging the abovesaid order. THE learned Counsel for the appellant explained before this Commission the circumstances under which the written version/reply, on behalf of the appellant, could not be filed before the learned District Forum and as such the appellant was allowed to file his reply and also to raise the pleas, in the grounds of appeal, which could not be brought on record before the learned District Forum. It was also decided, on the request of both the parties, that instead of remanding the present case to the learned District Forum, for a fresh decision, on merits, the same be decided on merits by this Commission itself. In their reply as well as the grounds of appeal filed before us, the appellant has denied that the two telephones of the respondent remained out of order for the periods as alleged by the respondent. On the contrary, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that as and when the respondent made a complaint, the same was attended to, either on the same day or within a day or two, and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/MTNL. The appellant has also challenged the order of the learned District Forum awarding Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the respondent, on the ground that the respondent had not given any estimate or break-up of the amount claimed as compensation, nor led any evidence regarding the details of the financial loss suffered by him, due to the non-availability of the telephone services. The appellant has, in this regard, relied on the decisions of the Hon''ble National Commission in cases Indian Airlines v. Rajesh Kumar Upadhyaya, reported as I (1991) CPJ 206 (NC); and Commercial Officer, Office of the Telecom District Manager, Patna v. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation, reported as I (1991) CPJ 42 (NC).

WE have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties, as well as have gone through the documents/material on record. The appellant has placed on record a copy of the FNMR, as well as a statement of Fault History relating to both the telephones in question. On the other hand, the respondent has placed on record the Sanction Mamos, issued by the appellant, for the sanction of the rental refund to the respondent, for the period the telephones remained out of order. The said Memos are virtually an admission on the part of the appellant/MTNL that the telephone numbers mentioned therein remained out of order for the period specified therein. However, even if the said Memos are to be taken as a yardstick, it is beyond doubt that the telephone numbers 6436835 and 6436705 remained out of order for 67 days and 57 days respectively. In the above circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Coming to the question as to whether the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded to the respondent as compensation by the learned District Forum was justified, in the absence of direct evidence on the point of loss of business and resultant financial loss. It is an admitted fact that both the telephones are installed at the business premises of the respondent. It is also a fact that in present days most of the business is conducted through the telephone services. It also goes without saying that immense harassment and mental agony is caused to the subscriber due to the disruption of the said facility for long periods, at a stretch. As such, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- granted as compensation to the respondent by the learned District Forum seems just and proper. It is, therefore, clear from the above discussion that the present appeal is devoid of merit and as such is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There is, however, no order as to costs. The appellant is directed to pay the compensation to the respondent as per the impugned order within three weeks from the date of the receipt of this order failing which the appellant will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till actual payment. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be communicated to the parties as also to the concerned District Forum free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal dismissed.