PRAKASH WADHWA vs MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

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 4.12.2002, passed by District Forum (Central), ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1702/2001 - entitled Shri Prakash Wadhwa v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant Shri Prakash Wadhwa had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, before the District Forum, the grievance of the appellant, in nut shell, was that his telephone bearing No. 5746785 installed at his residence at Flat No. 90, MIG Flats, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi, remained out of order for 30 days w.e.f. 6.1.2001 but in the bill dated 9.2.2001 it was stated that 904 calls had been made from the above said telephone during the above period. In the complaint, file by the appellant, the appellant had sought for the refund of 829 calls, rent rebate for 27 days and litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 1,000/-. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondent it was stated that the complaint, filed by the appellant, was false and frivolous. It was stated that the complaint received from the appellant with regard to defect in the telephone was rectified on 16.1.2001. It was stated that thereafter another complaint was received on 18.1.2001 which was rectified on 24.1.2001. It was stated that for the period during which the telephone remained out of order, rental rebate was already been granted to the appellant.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that as the telephone of the appellant remained non-functional from 8.1.2001 to 15.1.2001 and thereafter from 18.1.2001 to 24.1.2001, there was negligence on the part of the respondent and on the basis of the above finding has directed the respondent MTNL to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the appellant besides Rs. 500/- towards cost of litigation expenses.

NOT feeling satisfied with the relief granted by the learned District Forum, the appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. With the consent of the parties we have heard the above mentioned appeal finally at the admission stage. The appellant argued his case in person whereas on behalf of the respondent arguments have been advanced by Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, Advocate who is assisted by Shri P.D. Singhal, Assistant General Manager of the respondent. During the course of arguments, it is stated by the appellant that though, the learned District Forum vide impugned order has granted a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- besides Rs. 500/- towards litigation expenses yet in respect of 829 calls, no relief has been given to him. On the above limited point we have heard the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. In our opinion, in case if the amount of compensation, amounting to Rs. 1,000/- already granted by the learned District Forum, is increased further by Rs. 500/- , the same would meet the ends of justice in so far as the above grievance of the appellant is concerned. It is, therefore, directed that the respondent MTNL shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) as compensation to the respondent besides Rs. 500/- towards cost of litigation expenses. The appeal, filed by the appellant, is allowed to the above extent only. The order being impugned in the present proceedings is modified to the above extent only. It is directed that payment in terms of the above order be made by the respondent MTNL to the appellant within 4 weeks from the date of this order.

THE above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. A copy of this order, as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal disposed of.