SUSHIL KUMAR vs GENERAL MANAGER, M.T.N.L.

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 30.12.2002, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Instituional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1728/99 entitled Mr. Sushil Kumar v. M.T.N.L.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Mr. Sushil Kumar had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that the respondent on 28.3.1997 had allotted a telephone, bearing No. 6287015 in favour of the appellant and the appellant had intimated that number to all his relatives, friends and business associates. It was stated that the above said telephone number, which was given to him by the respondent, was given to one Mr. V.P.S. Raghav at J-1/137 without his knowledge and the appellant was given another number 6281014. THE other grievance in the complaint, filed by the appellant, before the District Forum was that the new number allotted to the appellant mostly remained out of order and his requests and representations to the respondent did not yield any result. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the appellant, in the complaint, filed by him, had claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondent, it was stated that telephone No. 6287015 was opened at the residence of Mr. Raghav on 30.3.1997 and telephone No. 6287014 was also opened at the residence of the appellant on the same date. It was stated that as the appellant did not make payment of bills for billing cycle 1.12.1997 and 1.2.1998 for Rs. 557/- and Rs. 979/- respectively, the telephone bearing No. 6287014 was disconnected on 4.4.1998. It was stated that the pending bills were paid by the appellant after a gap of six months on 27.11.1998 and thereafter the appellant was given a new number bearing No. 6283421 because the old number 6387014 was given to someone else for a period of more than six months had elapsed. It was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has partly allowed the complaint and for the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent has directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.

NOT feeling satisfied with the relief given by the District Forum, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The only contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments before us is that the relief granted to the appellant by the District Forum a highly inadequate and that the appellant should have been given the compensation as claimed by him. Insofar as the above aspect is concerned, the position is that relief to a ''consumer'' by a redressal agency, established under the Act, can be granted only in terms of Section 14 of the Act. Sub-clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act deals with compensation that can be awarded to a ''consumer'' by a redressal agency established under the Act. The above said provision of the Act reads as under : "(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party."

ON a plain reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is apparent that a ''consumer'' may be awarded compensation for any loss or injury suffered by the ''consumer'' due to the negligence of the opposite party. The Hon''ble National Commission in a recent decision in case Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited v. H.B Impex Pvt. Ltd. reported as I (2004) CPJ 13 (NC)=2002 CTJ 106 (CP) (NCDRC) had held in clear cut terms that where a consumer sues for damages, that the loss suffered as a result of breach of contract, must not be too remote and a distinction has to be drawn between normal and abnormal or unusual loss. In other words, a conusmer, in terms of the above provisions, can be compensated only for normal loss and not for any abnormal or unusual or remote loss. With a view to satisfy ourselves, we have put a specific query to the learned Counsel for the appellant, asking him to satisfy so as to how the relief granted to appellant, by the District Forum, can be treated or termed as inadequate in terms of the provisions of Sub-clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. No satisfactory reply would be given by the learned Counsel for the appellant to our above query. No other point is urged or pressed before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, in the given facts, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum. The order being impugned in the present proceedings, is a well reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity, so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly the same is dismissed in limine, with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.