RAKESH JAIN vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

THIS appeal, filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 25.5.1999, passed by District Forum-V, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 348/98 entitled, Mr. Rakesh Jain v. Mahanagar Telephonoe Nigam Ltd.

THE relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum with the grievance that he had applied for a telephone connection on 23.2.1987 and thereafter on 23.1.1993, he was informed that the telephone had been sanctioned in his favour by the respondent. However, since on account of some personal difficulties, the appellant was unable to have the telephone installed, he requested the respondent to keep the said telephone in safe custody. THEreafter, on 6.9.1993, the appellant requested for the installation of the said telephone at his premises but despite best efforts was unable to get the telephone connection. However, on 5.3.1994, the appellant learnt that the telephone in question was installed and working at a different premises i.e. 32, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. THE said information was duly conveyed by the appellant to the Dy. General Manager of the respondent. Despite that, it was only on 14.7.1994 that the telephone in question was installed at the premises of the appellant at 24, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, and though it was a new connection, an old telephone instrument was given to the appellant. It was further stated by the appellant that in the meanwhile the officials of the concerned department of the respondent had been contacting him for signing some papers relating to the shifting of the telephone which he had declined to sign and it was with great difficulty that the telephone in question was made operational for the first time on 19.7.1994. THEreafter the appellant received a bill for Rs. 2,467/-, on 29.7.1994, for the period the telephone connection in question was installed and working at another premises. As the appellant refused to pay the said bill, the telephone connection of the appellant was disconnected on 18.8.1994 on account of non- payment of the aforesaid bill. Accordingly, the appellant preferred a complaint before the District Forum praying for the redressal of his grievances. In the reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, the defence of the respondent was that on account of a bona fide mistake, the telephone in question had been installed at another premises, as the name of the person in whose name, the telephone was installed was also Rakesh Jain and the mistake had occurred on account of the said fact. However, as soon as it came to the notice of the respondent that the telephone had been installed at the wrong premises, the same was shifted to the premises of the appellant and as such there was no deficiency in service on its part. As regards the disconnection of the telephone in question was concerned, it was stated that the same was disconnected on account of non-payment of bill for Rs. 2,467/- by the appellant.

The learned District Forum on the basis of material on record held that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and as such allowed the complaint of the appellant with directions to the respondent to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by the inadequacy of compensation granted to him, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have carefully gone through the documents/material placed on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties. The sole contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that the compensation and costs awarded in favour of the appellant are highly inadequate in the circumstances of the case. We are inclined to agree with the said contention of the appellant, in view of the fact, that the telephone connection which was sanctioned on 22.1.1993 and for which the request for installation at the premises of the appellant, was received by the respondent on 6.9.1993, was initially installed at wrong premises, as per the own admission of the respondent and thereafter installed at the premises of the appellant, was made operational only on 19.7.1994 i.e. almost after a year. Thereafter a bill for Rs. 2,467/- was raised for the period when the telephone was not working at the premises of the appellant and was accordingly disconnected for non-payment on 28.8.1994. As per the averments of the appellant in the present appeal, the telephone was reconnected only after the filing of the complaint before the District Forum and was again disconnected on account of non-payment of old disputed bills and as such was not operational even till the date of filing of the appeal. It is thus apparent that though the telephone in question was duly sanctioned in favour of the appellant in 1993, services of the same were not made available to the appellant virtually till the passing of the impugned order. Since the appellant had been deprived of the said facility for almost six years till the passing of the impugned order and is being continued to be deprived of the said amenity, the appellant was indeed entitled to a higher compensation than awarded vide impugned order. Furthermore, the fact that the telephone in question was installed at the business premises of the appellant had probably escaped the notice of the learned District Forum while awarding the compensation. It is, therefore, presumed that the denial of the said facility in the commercial premises of the appellant must have resulted in some financial loss, also besides the harassment and inconvenience to the appellant. However, since the appellant has not placed on record any evidence to show the quantum of loss suffered by him on account of non-provision of the said amenity by the respondent we are unable to grant an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per months as prayed by him on account of business losses, but keeping in view the totality of circumstances a lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation is awarded in favour of the appellant.

ACCORDINGLY, the present appeal, filed by the appellant is allowed only to the above extent and the impugned order of the learned District Forum is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation and costs awarded by the District Forum vide impugned order is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- (in lumpsum) to be paid by the respondent to the appellant within 30 days of the receipt of this order with the directions to make the telephone in question operational at the premises of the appellant positively within the said period of 30 days. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.