RAJENDRA PRASAD SAXENA vs M.T.N.L.

THE present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 19.9.1997, passed by District Forum No. -IV in Complaint Case No. 569/1997 (old No. 66/1996) - entitled Shri Rajendra Prasad Saxena v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had applied for a telephone connection in the OYT/G category on 10.7.1995 and had also deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as per the requirement of the respondents against registration No. I.XR/OYT/G/R/013987. In pursuance of the said registration, an OB No. 36224100001 was issued by respondent No. 2 on 24.7.1995. Since no telephone connection was provided to the appellant till 21.8.1995, the appellant contacted respondent No. 2 and was assured that his telephone would be installed within a fortnight. However, despite repeated visits no telephone was provided to the appellant and on 4.10.1995 respondent No. 2 informed the appellant that the grant of telephone connection was not feasible, for want of underground cable pair, however the work for providing additional underground cable pair had been taken up and was in progress and was likely to be completed by the first week of October, 1995 and that the connection to the appellant would be provided by November, 1995. But despite that no progress was made in that regard by the respondent and as such the appellant sought the refund of the security amount of Rs. 15,000/- deposited by him with the respondents, together with interest. Since the cheque for refund did not reach him, the appellant approached the learned District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), for directions to the respondents to pay him Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation on account of mental agony, as well as professional loss and another sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and damages for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The respondents however did not file any reply/written version or affidavit by way of evidence before the District Forum despite having been afforded due opportunities for the same.

The learned District Forum under the above circumstances allowed the complaint of the appellant with the directions to the respondents to pay interest to the appellant on his deposited amount w.e.f. 10.7.1995 to 23.1.1996 on admissible rates as well as Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by the quantum of compensation awarded to him the appellant has approached this Commission by filing the present appeal. We have carefully perused the documents/material on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar on behalf of both the parties. The sole grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is that the learned District Forum has failed to grant compensation/damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- as prayed for in his complaint besides other reliefs granted by the learned District Forum. In this regard it would be pertinent to point out the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads as under : "We heard both sides and we have gone through record of case. Complainant got his telephone booked on 10.7.1995, OB was issued on 24.7.1995 and booking was cancelled on 10.10.1995 and complainant received back his booking amount with interest on 1.2.1996 i.e. within 3 months of cancellation of booking. Repeated visits of complainant to different offices in the intervening period was uncalled for because MTNL has several offices throughout Delhi and process of refund of money is a lengthy process requiring processing by several different departments of MTNL. Only deficiency in service on part of MTNL we find is that complainant was paid interest on deposited money from 10.7.1995 to 9.12.1995 while cheque dated 23.1.1996 was sent to him on 24.1.1996 and he should have been paid interest on his deposited amount upto 23.1.1996. We accordingly direct MTNL to pay interest on Rs. 15,000/- to complainant from 10.12.1995 to 2.1.1996 also according to admissible rates and also pay to him Rs. one thousand as cost of litigation."

THUS it is amply clear that the learned District Forum has considered all aspects of the matter including the fact that the booking amount had been refunded to the appellant on request within a period of 3 months of cancellation of booking which in the circumstances is deemed to be reasonable period for processing the same. The learned District Forum has also rightly awarded the interest amount for the period from 10.7.1995 i.e. the date of deposit till the date of issue of the cheque. THUS the amount deposited by the appellant has been duly refunded to him with interest. As regards the compensation is concerned, the same has to be awarded in terms of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act whereby the loss occasioned to the complainant has to be in direct relation to the resulting directly from the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. As such, in the instant case the appellant was deprived of the use of his money i.e. deposited by him with the respondents for the particular period as mentioned above and as such by awarding interest on the said amount the loss occasioned to him has been duly compensated and as such no further compensation can be granted to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in the absence of any documentary/other evidence on record quantifying the loss occasioned to the appellant on account of delayed refund of the registration amount to the appellant by the respondents. Therefore, in the circumstances, the present appeal, filed by the appellant is devoid of merit and as such deserves to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed. There is however no order as to costs. The present appeal is disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.