SUKHVINDER SINGH JAGGI vs GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 5.6.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II] in complaint case No. 892 of 1998.

THE sole grievance of the appellant/complainant is that the compensation awarded to him is inadequate and on lower side. THE complainant claimed compensation of a sum of Rs. 16,000/- as loss suffered in business due to non-release of the telephone connection by the respondent. THE appellant also claimed compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for harassment and mental tension due to the deficiency in service on the part of O.P. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was claimed as costs of litigation. THE total amount of compensation claimed by the appellant/complainant was Rs. 23,000/-. The District Forum-II awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on all the heads relating to mental and physical harassment, loss in business and other allied heads and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as expenses of litigation. So far as the compensation for loss of business for want of telephone is concerned, the District Forum has discussed about it in Para 8 of the impugned order, which reads as under :- "8. The complainant has pleaded loss of business for want of telephone. But he has not adduced the documentary evidence from the account books of his firm to prove as to how much loss in business, he has suffered for late release of telephone connection. Therefore, only a token compensation on this count can be awarded to him."

The District Forum-II, it may be mentioned, was conscious of the fact that there was no evidence led by the appellant/complainant for proving the loss of business for want of telephone still it proceeded to consider the grant of compensation as a token compensation. It may be pointed out that the compensation for loss of business for want of telephone cannot be treated as "compensation" under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act]. The complainant has to lead proper evidence to prove actual damages suffered due to the non-release of the telephone and the same can appropriately be assessed and determined, if appellant is found entitled to get it, by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction after holding a full dressed trial. The compensation due to loss of business is in fact a claim of damages for which a civil suit will lie before a Civil Court.

WE, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the complainant, if so advised, may approach a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking appropriate damages resulting from the loss of business due to the non-release of the telephone within a reasonable time by the OP. So far as the compensation relating to the physical harassment and mental agony is concerned, the appellant/complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 5,000/- as against which the District Forum-II has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,000/- which included token compensation for loss of busines. In our considered view, the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,000/- cannot be said to be inadequate. The amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum-II is just and proper and no interference is called for in the amount of compesation awarded. The District Forum-II has awarded Rs. 500/- as expenses of litigation. This amount also appears to be just and proper. The complainant has claimed Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. The appellant has not paid any amount toward prosecution of the complaint case as no Court fees is chargeable on the complaint and no process fee is charged from the complainant for issuing the process. Even the Counsel for the complainant/appellant has not issued any certificate regarding the fees realised by him from the complainant. Resultantly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed subject to the appellant being relegated to his remedy of approaching a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for claiming damages for loss of business, if so, advised. The parties shall bear their own costs of appeal. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.