S.MUNAFA vs GENERAL MANAGER, MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.

THE present appeal arises out of an order of the learned District Forum-I dated 6.3.1996 passed in Complaint Case No. 1195/1993 entitled Shri S. Munafa v. MTNL.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant/complainant had filed a complaint before the learned District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') wherein it was averred that the appellant being the subscriber of telephone No. 7514489 received a bill in the month of January, 1993 for Rs. 5,683/- for the billing period w.e.f. 1.2.1993 to 31.3.1993 which according to him was highly excessive and as such the appellant represented against the same to the concerned officials of the respondent vide representation dated 4.3.1993 and 9.3.1993. THE said representation elicited no reply, on the contrary, the telephpone services of the appellant were disconnected on 23.3.1993. THE appellant, therefore, lodged another protest dated 29.3.1993 against the said unlawful disconnection and sought the restoration of the same but the same was not restored till the filing of the complaint before the District Forum. The defence of the respondent before the District Forum was that the telephone in question had been provided with STD facility and as such the bills dated 1.11.1992 for Rs. 3,006/- and 1.1.1993 for Rs. 5,683/- were due from the appellant and, therefore, the telephone of the appellant had been disconnected on 23.3.1993 for non-payment of dues. It was also alleged by the respondent in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum that the telephone in question had been in working order during the specified period and that the complaint of the complainant in that regard had been duly investigated and no fault was found either in the associated meter or in the lines or in the apparatus. Therefore, the complaint of the appellant being devoid of merit was liable to be dismissed.

The learned District Forum on the basis of material before it held the respondent deficient in service and allowed relief to the appellant in terms of the impugned order.

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 placed on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties.

THE grievances of the appellant in the present appeal are two-fold. Firstly, it is contended by the appellant that in the impugned order, though the learned District Forum has taken cognizance of the fact that the bill dated 1.11.1992 was for the amount of Rs. 306/- and not for Rs. 3,006/- (as represented by the respondent), the same has been referred to as ''outstanding'' whereas the said amount of Rs. 306/- in terms of bill dated 1.11.1992 has already been paid. THE appellant in support of his said contention has also placed on record a photo copy of the bill bearing the receipt for the said amount. As such, the said contention of the appellant is justified to the extent that vide impugned order the above mentioned bill for Rs. 306/- has been referred to as unpaid, whereas the appellant has proved on record that the said amount stood duly paid as per the receipt placed on record. THE second, contention of the appellant is that no compensation for losses/injuries caused to the appellant on account of ''deficiency in service'' of the respondent has been awarded to him in terms of the prayer in this regard in his complaint filed before the District Forum. THE said contention of the appellant is also not without merit. THE learned District Forum vide impugned order has held the respondent to be deficient in services on account of having raised excessive bill dated 1.1.1993 for the amount of Rs. 5,683/-, as well as in disconnecting the telephone of the appellant for non-payment of the said inflated bill and as such has directed the respondent to revise the bill dated 1.1.1993 on the basis of average billing of the last one year, and to adjust the remaining amount of Rs. 1,421/- already paid by the appellant as 25% of the disputed bill dated 1.1.1993 for Rs. 5,683/-, in the future bills and has also directed the respondent not to charge rent for the period during which the telephone remained disconnected. However, despite that the learned District Forum has not awarded either any compensation or cost of litigation, to the appellant. In the circumstances, as is apparent from the facts of the case, the appellant has been put to undue inconvenience in pursuing the matter with the respondent for the correction of the excessive bill dated 1.1.1993. Furthermore, his telephone remained disconnected, as a result of which he was unable to avail of the telephone services for his business and domestic purposes and was also constrained to file a complaint before the District Forum for the redressal of his grievances. THE appellant is in the circumstances entitled to compensation/damages for the inconvenience caused to him on account of being deprived of telephone services from 23.3.1993 to 26.10.1993 together with costs. THErefore, we award a consolidated amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant on both the counts which should satisfy the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. THErefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and in addition to the relief already granted by the learned District Forum vide impugned order, the respondent is also directed to pay to the appellant/complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation. THE impugned order of the District Forum is modified to the above extent. THE same be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation awarded by us shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till payment. THE present appeal is disposed of in above terms. Appeal partly allowed.