RAJINDER PD. GUPTA vs GENERAL MANAGER, M.T.N.L.

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 26th March, 2002, passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 182/2001 - entitled Shri Rajinder Pd. Gupta v. THE General Manager, M.T.N.L.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant, alleging ''deficiency in service'' on the part of the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, against the respondent before the District Forum. THE learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has partly allowed the complaint filed by the appellant and has granted relief to the appellant, as detailed in the impugned order. Not being satisfied, the appellant has prefered the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

We have heard the Authorised Representative of the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments, the only contention advanced by the Authorised Representative of the appellant, in support of the case of the appellant, is that the relief granted to the appellant by the District Forum, vide impugned order, is highly inadequate.

IN so far as the above contention, advanced by the Authorised Representative of the appellant, is concerned, the position is that relief to a ''consumer'' by a Redressal Agency, established under the Act, can be granted only in terms of Section 14 of the Act. Sub-clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 deals with compensation that can be awarded to a ''consumer'' by a Redressal Agency established under the Act. The above said provision of the Act reads as under : "(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the oposite party." On a plain reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is apparent that a ''consumer'' may be awarded compensation for any loss or injury suffered by the ''consumer'' due to the negligence of the opposite party. The Hon''ble National Commission in a recent decision - in case Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. H.B. Impex Pvt. Ltd., reported as 2002 CTJ 106 (CP) (NCDRC), has held in clear-cut terms that where a consumer sues for damages, the loss he suffered as a result of breach of contract, must not be too remote and a distinction has to be drawn between normal and abnormal or unusual loss. In other words, a consumer, in terms of the above provisions, can be compensated only for normal loss and not for any abnormal or unusual or remote loss. With a view to satisfy ourselves, we have put a specific query to the Authorised Representative of the appellant, asking him to satisfy us as to how the relief granted to the appellant by the District Forum can be treated or termed as inadequate in terms of the provisions of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. No satisfactory reply could be given by the Authorised Representative of the appellant to our above query. No other point urged or pressed before us by the Authorised Representative of the appellant. In our opinion, in the given facts, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum. The order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well-reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties, free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room. Appeal dismissed.