SUHASINI SHARMA vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

THE present appeal has been preferred against the order of the District Forum No. IV, dated 23.6.1997, in Case No. 248/96 entitled Mrs. Suhasini Sharma v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

THE case of the appellant/complainant is that she is a freelance translator and her livelihood depends on being available on the telephone. It is alleged that her telephone started remaining out of order frequently, and one lineman named Mr. Sharma was causing the harassment by dis-connecting and re-connecting the appellant''s telephone periodically. It is also submitted that her telephone remained out of order from 1.7.1995 to 11.7.1995 and, therefore, she filed a complaint before the learned District Forum praying for a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, as well as Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss of income. The respondent/M.T.N.L. in their written statement, filed before the District Forum, denied all the above mentioned allegations of the appellant, including the existence of any lineman called Mr. Sharma, in the area in question. The respondent also placed on record copy of the FNMR, in which 45 calls have been recorded for the period 1.7.1995 to 15.7.1995, when the phone is alleged to have been out of order. On the basis of the said document the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant vide order dated 23.6.1997.

The abovesaid order has been challenged in the present appeal. The respondent put in appearance before this Commission after being served with a notice, and thereafter also filed a formal reply to the appeal, denying that the telephone remained out of order from 1.7.1995 to 11.7.1995 as well as all the other allegations made by the appellant. It was, however, admitted that as per the FNMR only four calls have been recorded for the fortnight ending on 30.4.1995.

IN view of the admitted fact that the telephone was not functioning properly from 16.4.1995 to 30.4.1995, we can conclude that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/M.T.N.L. It is also admitted that the respondent is ready to give a rental rebate to the appellant for that period. However, the appellant has not placed on record any evidence/documents to ascertain the quantum of financial loss, if any caused to her, due to the non-availability of the telephone services. Therefore, no compensation can be granted to the appellant on that account. It is, however, an admitted fact that she is dependant on the telephone for her livelihood, and being a single lady, it can be presumed that the absence of telephone services for a fortnight must have caused mental agony and harassment to the appellant. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, we feel that the order of the learned District Forum, in holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/MTNL is not justified. In consequence, therefore, the impugned order dated 23.6.1997 is set aside, and the present appeal is allowed.

THE respondent is directed to give a rental rebate to the appellant for the fortnight ending to 30.4.1995, as well as pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to the appellant. In addition, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- be paid to the appellant as litigation expenses. This order be complied with within 45 days of this order, failing which the respondent will be liable to pay an interest of 12% p.a. on the said amounts. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal allowed.