R.C.BATURA vs M.T.N.L.

THE present appeal has been filed challenging the order of the District Forum No. I dated 4.4.1997, in Complaint Case No. 2472/94 entitled Ramesh Chander Batura v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that the telephone No. 7114662 was installed at the Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, residence of the appellant. THE appellant shifted his residence to A-13, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi and applied for the transfer of his above said telephone to his new residence on 6.7.1990. THE appellant received a letter from the respondent dated 25.7.1990, informing him that the transfer of his telephone from Rana Pratap Bagh to Rohini Exchange was technically not feasible due to the limited capacity of the said exchange. THEreafter, the appellant wrote to the respondent on 31.12.1991 but the respondent again informed the appellant vide letter dated 16.3.1992 that the Rohini Exchange was still freezed. It is the case of the appellant that he made repeated visits and contacted various officers/officials of the respondent but it was only on 26.4.1994 that he was orally informed by the Commercial Officer of the respondent that an O.B. dated 18.5.1993 had been issued for installation of telephone at the appellant''s new residence. In the mean time the appellant had again shifted his residence falling within the Rohini Exchange area itself and informed the change of address to the respondent on 6.1.1994, the telephone of the appellant, however, was not installed despite having been issued O.B. dated 18.5.1993 and, therefore, on 18.12.1994 the appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum for the redressal of his grievances. The respondent filed its reply/written version stating therein that the contract for the expansion of the Rohini Exchange was given to a contractor but since disputes arose between the respondent and the contractor, latter approached the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 16/94 and obtained a stay resulting in the work of expansion of Rohini Exchange being stopped and it was only on the vacation of the stay in January, 1995 that the work was resumed. In the circumstances, the respondent stated that the delay was due to the above circumstances and as such there was no deficiency in service on its part.

During the course of arguments, before the District Forum, it was alleged by the appellant that the respondent had issued O.B. to other persons and had also installed their telephones whereas despite having an O.B. issued prior in time, his telephone had not been shifted to his new residence. The District Forum directed the Counsel for the respondent to file an affidavit to the effect that no telephone had been provided to any one in the Rohini Exchange after the issue of O.B. to the appellant. The respondent was afforded several opportunities for filing the said affidavit but it failed to file the same. As such, the learned District Forum, decided the case against the respondent after drawing an adverse inference. Since the appellant''s telephone was installed on 28.1.1997, during the pendency of the proceedings the learned District Forum awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation in favour of the appellant. The appellant being dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded to him by District Forum has preferred the present appeal before us. The appellant has also placed on record a copy of O.B. issued in the name of one Sh. H.C. Popli. The said O.B. is dated 29.3.1996 and the said telephone was energised in July, 1996. In view of the said document the respondent was afforded a further opportunity by this Commission to file an affidavit clarifying the factual position, vide directions of this Commission dated 3.12.1998. The respondent, however, failed to file such an affidavit. Therefore, neither the adverse inference drawn by the District Forum in the impugned order was dispelled, nor the said order was challenged by filing an appeal by the respondent. As such, the findings of the District Forum regarding the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent remained unrebutted.

THE matter was argued before us solely on the question of quantum of compensation to be granted to the appellant. On the above point we have heard the arguments addressed by Mr. S.K. Punshi, authorised representative of the appellant as well as Mr. S. Pattjoshi, Counsel for the respondent and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. As already stated the learned District Forum, vide impugned order, granted Rs. 1,500/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs to the appellant. THE respondent referred to the decision of the National Commission in General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Mauli Chand Sharma, reported as II (1995) CPJ 183 (NC), as well as a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in case Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur v. THE Chairman and Managing Director of Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & Anr., reported as I (1995) CPJ 1 (SC). In view of the above two decisions the respondent contended that the compensation can only be granted for actual loss suffered due to the negligence of the opposite party and since in this case the appellant had not filed any evidence to show the actual loss suffered by him, therefore the compensation granted by the learned District, Forum was sufficient and justified. On the other hand, the authorised representative of the appellant contended that the appellant being a Journalist had not only suffered financial loss in his profession but also suffered mental agony and harassment for about six long years, as the shifting of telephone was applied for on 6.7.1990, whereas, it was actually installed at the appellant''s new residence on 28.1.1997 and as such, was entitled to a much higher amount of compensation. In the facts and circumstances of the present case we are inclined to agree with the contention advanced by the authorised representative of the appellant that the compensation granted by the learned District Forum on account of mental agony and harassment as well as costs of litigation is on the lower side. Decidedly as there is no independent evidence on record regarding the actual financial loss suffered by the appellant, no amount can be granted to the appellant on that account, but the fact that telephone is a ''necessity'' and not a ''luxury'' in the present times and that the absence of telephone services can cause lot of inconvenience and harassment to a person in his day-to-day life and that the appellant was deprived of the said facility and had to run from pillar to post to have his telephone shifted to his new residence, for almost six long years, cannot altogether be ignored in the given facts. In view of the position explained above, we are of the opinion that if a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony undergone by the appellant, as well as Rs. 1,500/- as costs of litigation is awarded to the appellant, the same would meet the ends of justice in the present case. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present appeal and direct the respondent to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation plus Rs. 1,500/- as costs of litigation to the appellant within 30 days of the receipt of this order. THE impugned order passed by the learned District Forum stands modified to the above extent. THE appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal allowed with costs.