Shyam Sunder Lal vs GENERAL MANAGER (NORTH), MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.

THIS order disposes of the application filed by Shri Shyam Sunder Lai, Delhi under Section 12B of the Act (for brief the Act), seeking compensation from Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Delhi.

THE facts of the case as contained in the compensation application can be briefly recalled as below. The Telephone No. 7273617 was installed on 25.12.1991 by the respondent at the office of the applicant at B-l/18, Budh Vihar, Delhi. Two bills for the period 1.10.1992 and 2.12.1992 in respect of this telephone for amounts Rs. 8,503/- and Rs. 652/- were raised which included STD charges. Since the applicant had never applied for STD facility the applicant represented to the respondent which was rejected. The respondent thereafter disconnected the telephone of the applicant on 29.11.1994. Though the respondent subsequently passed orders for not collecting the STD charges, the telephone was reconnected only after the applicant paid the rental charges for the period that the telephone remained disconnected.

The respondent filed a reply to the notice of the compensation application. The respondent admitted that the telephone was disconnected on 29.11.1994 as the bills for the billing cycles 1.10.1992 and 2.12.1992 were not paid. It was also admitted that on a review of the case of the applicant the STD calls in the bills were exempted on 11.8.1995. The respondent had taken the stand that the rent for the period that the telephone remained disconnected was charged as per departmental practice.

AFTER the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent is or has been indulging in the unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application ? (2) If the answer to the foregoing issue is in the affirmative, whether such unfair trade practices are prejudicial to the public interest or to the interest of any consumer or consumers generally ? (3) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or injury due to aforesaid unfair trade practices ? (4) Relief.

The applicant and the respondent filed their affidavits of evidence reiterating the points made in the compensation application and the reply of the respondent respectively. No witnesses were produced on either side. I gave a hearing to Mr. N.R. Samy, Advocate for the applicant and Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate for the respondent. I have carefully gone through the records of the case evaluated the evidences adduced and took into consideration the arguments advanced by both the parties.

IN this case there are no disputes regarding facts. The Advocate for the respondent argued that the telephone was disconnected for non- payment of the bills. The respondent had given credit to the applicant for the bills relating to STD charges after due verification. According to him, there has been no indulgence in unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent in these actions and there has been no misrepresentation of any type either. When the applicant wanted reconnection of his telephone, the reconnection fee of Rs. 100/- as well as the rental charges for the period that the telephone remained disconnected were levied as per the departmental practice. On the other hand the Advocate for the applicant Mr. Samy argued that since the telephone was installed without any STD facility, the question of levying any STD charges did not arise and there was no justification for disconnection of telephone for non-payment of charges which related to STD calls. The facts that the respondent after verification admitted the stand of the applicant and gave credit for the STD charges levying only go to show that the respondent was at fault. According to him. it is grossly unfair on the part of the respondent to ask the applicant to pay rental charges for the period the telephone remained disconnected and the applicant did not have the facility of use of the telephone. It is obvious that the respondent was not entitled to claim STD charges from the applicant when the telephone admittedly did not have the STD facility. If the telephone had been disconnected on account of non-payment of bills in the first instance, when the respondent realised that the claim of the applicant was correct and credit in the form of refund was given to the applicant in respect of the STD charges, there is no justification to penalise the applicant by asking him to pay the rental changes for the period that the telephone remained disconnected. The stand of the respondent that the rent was payable as per the departmental practice is devoid of logic. The respondent was bound to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and act reasonably. I am, therefore, of the view that on the facts and circumstances of the case there has been a clear deficiency in service and the respondent had indulged in unfair trade practice falling within the definition of Section 36A of the Act.

THE applicant has suffered loss and damage due to the action of the respondent inasmuch as he has to pay the rental charges for the telephone which did not was practically non- existent for a certain duration. THE applicant in his application has claimed compensation due to mental tension and legal charges in addition to interest for the amount of rental charges paid by him. Apart from the fact that the applicant had not led any evidence in support of the amount claimed towards business loss and mental tension, the fact that it was open for the applicant to pay the bill under protest and take necessary proceedings to recover the amount cannot be lost sight of. I am, therefore, of the view that the interest of justice will be served if the respondent is directed to refund the rental charges recovered from the applicant alongwith interest. In the light of the above, I direct that the respondent shall refund to the applicant the rental charges less the restoration fee recovered from the applicant for the period that the telephone remained disconnected alongwith 18% interest from the date of credit till the date of refund. THE respondent shall give effect to this direction within 8 weeks from today and file an affidavit of compliance within four weeks thereafter. Application disposed of.