M.T.N.L. vs SAT BHUSHAN JAIN

THE Appellant/M.T.N.L. has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the District Forum dated 8th April, 1997 in Case No. 357/96 entitled ''Shri Sat Bhushan Jain v. M.T.N.L.'' THE case of the respondent is that he as well as his two sons are practising Advocates and their telephone No. 2203030 remained out of order during the period 20.5.1994 to 21.7.1994, but he could lodge a complaint only on 11.6.1994. It is also his case that 2 Linemen, Bhanwar Singh and Shanker, came to repair the fault and asked for an illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- per month. On refusal to grant the same, they left threatening to keep the telephone out of order. THE respondent/ complainant thereafter lodged a number of complaints with the appellant/M.T.N.L., as well as personally met the concerned officials, but to no avail. Eventually the complainant/respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and also that the guilty officials be penalised by deducting Rs. 1,000 / - per month from their salary, for two months.

THE above complaint of the complainant/ respondent was contested by the appellant. In their reply, the appellant denied all the allegations made against them. However, it was admitted that as per the Fortnightly Meter Reading (F.N.M.R.), (copy placed on record and marked as Annexure-A), the telephone of the respondent remained out of order, only for a fortnight, i.e. from 1.7.1994 to 15.7.1994, for which period a rental rebate was allowed to the respondent. THE said information was conveyed to the respondent vide the appellant''s letter dated 31.10.1994. The learned District Forum vide their order dated 8.4.1997 allowed the complaint of the complainant/respondent and directed the M.T.N.L. to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the respondent alongwith Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation.

Against the above order dated 8.4.1997, the appellant/M.T.N.L. has filed the present appeal before us, mainly on the ground that despite the fact that a rental rebate has been given to the respondent/complainant, for the 15 days the telephone in question remained out of order, the District Forum had awarded an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the respondent. It is also contended that the respondent has not adduced any evidence before the District Forum to quantify the loss suffered by him directly in relation to the negligence/ deficiency in service by the appellant/M.T.N.L. The appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in case entitled Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur v. The Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & Anr., Vol. I (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), and General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. Mauli Chand Sharma, Vol. II (1995) CPJ 183 (NC), by the Hon''ble National Commission.

WE have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties as well as gone through the entire material placed on record. It is an admitted fact that the telephone of the respondent was out of order from 1.7.1994 to 15.7.1994 i.e. 15 days, as is borne out of the F.N.M.R. (Annexure ''A'') placed on record. The learned District Forum has, therefore, rightly held that there is deficiency in service and the rental rebate granted by the appellant to the respondent is not enough compensation, as the respondent/complainant is a practising Advocate and as such must have suffered some professional loss. It is the case of the respondent that he is sharing the telephone in question with his two sons who are also Advocates and that they have also suffered inconvenience and harassment as well as financial loss for the period when their telephone was out of order. The compensation to be granted in the present case is not so much for the actual financial loss suffered by the respondent, but more on account of harassment and mental agony undergone by the respondent/ complainant and his two colleagues due to the non-availability of the telephone services. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the District Forum dated 8.4.1997. As a consequence, the present appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. As per statutory requirements a copy free of cost be supplied to both the parties and a copy be sent to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Appeal dismissed.