Telecom District Engineer vs DISTRICT FORUM

THE opposite parties before the District Forum have filed this appeal against the order dated 27.7.1990 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No. 331/90 by which they were directed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as compensation. THE complainant has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the appeal. THE District Forum, Ajmer has also been impleaded as proforma party-respondent No. 1. It is not necessary to give a detailed resume of facts leading to this appeal, for, we are concerned with regard to the award of compensation only. THE complainant was subscriber of telephone No. 22071 and subse- quently that number was changed to 32071. THE complainant received a bill dated 14.8.1989 for 2970 calls and demand for Rs. 2,500/- was made. A complaint was made that the amount mentioned in the bill was excessive as the number of calls mentioned therein were not made by the complainant. Despite applications nothing was done. On 12.10.1989 the complainant received a Bill for Rs. 5,086/- in which the calls mentioned were 5430. In that Bill Rs. 16/ were charged for trunk calls. THE amount of trunk calls was also wrongly mentioned. He submitted an application on 16.10.1989 protesting that the bill is erroneous. THEre was correspondence between the complainant and the opposite parties. Against the complainant a demand for Rs. 7,588/- was raised and he was asked to deposit this amount by 15.9.1990. THEre are other facts also which are not necessary to state. THE complainant filed the complaint praying that the opposite parties-appellants may be directed to make enquiry regarding the excessive billing and they may be ordered to amend the bills and that a direction may be given to restore the disconnected telephone which had been discon- nected previously. Compensation on account of financial loss, bodily and mental suffering amounting to Rs. 10,000/- were also claimed.

THE opposite parties-appellants resisted the complaint. It was stated that in accordance with the order bills have been amended and the complainant paid the amounts mentioned therein and telephone has been restored from 17.3.1990. THE District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant was forced to make payment of the amounts mentioned in the bills. THE complainant challenged the calls mentioned therein. THE Director, Telecom held that 2700 calls have wrongly been mentioned still the officers of the opposite party No. 1 did not agree to that. On account of undesirable attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant was deprived of the facility of telephone for a period of two months on account of the carelessness and inaction. All this resulted in inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. It, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the injury and loss suffered by him on account of the negligence of the opposite parties. Aggrieved the opposite parties have filed this appeal. THE complainant-respondent has submitted reply to the appeal today and its copy was delivered to the learned Counsel for the appellants. We heard Mr. U.D. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Hope Joseph complainant in person and considered the record in the light of the submissions made by the parties before us. Mr. U.D. Sharma learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate his claim for compensation, as no material was placed on record by him that he suffered monetary loss or inconvenience on account of the disconnection of the telephone which continued for two months. In the absence of any material regarding injury or loss submitted the learned Counsel for the appellants that the award of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act was wholly unjustified. Mr. Joseph stoutly opposed it.

The only question that crops up for our consideration is whether the District Forum was right and justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. The complainant has narrated the acts of omission and commission of the opposite parties in the complaint. He has also stated that on account of those acts of omission and commission he was put to inconvenience. In the relief para it has been stated that on account of the actions detailed in the complaint done by opposite parties No. 1 and 2, the complainant suffered financial loss, mental agony and bodily suffering and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- may be awarded as compensation. In the version of the case the opposite parties have denied the averments made in the complaint. It appears that the grievances raised by the complainant before the officers of the opposite parties were redressed and the bills were amended and as per amended bills the amounts were deposited by the complainant and the telephone was restored. The facts relating to inconvenience, mental and bodily suffering entitling him for compensation were denied. The complainant submitted affidavit before the District Forum in support of the complaint on 6.6.1990, the day on which the arguments were heard and, thereafter, on 27.7.1990 the order under appeal awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- was passed. The National Commission has considered the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act in various cases. The well recognised principle is that the compensation should not be fixed arbitrarily but on the basis of well settled legal principles. But in case like this how the compensation is to be assessed, the National Commission in Smt. Kailash Kumari v. Narendra Electronics (Revision Petition No. 40 of 1990 decided on November 7,1990) observed as under: "....In circumstances such as those obtaining in the present case where it is practically impossible to adduce tangible evidence regarding the actual monetary equivalent of the inconvenience, mental suffering, etc., caused to the petitioner, it is the duty of the concerned Redressal Forum, to assess and determine in the light of all the evidence available in the case. What amount would reasonably go to compensate the petitioner for the inconvenience, mental agony, etc. caused to the complainant on account of the negligence of the Opposite Party."

THE District Forum has given facts to show that the complainant was put to inconvenience and mental suffering. In a case where a person is deprived of the use of telephone on account of its disconnection no tangible evidence can be produced and it is on the basis of the circumstances that come on record the question relating to the award of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act is to be decided. A perusal of the order of the District Forum shows that it took into consideration the various circumstances. THE consequences ensuing from the disconnection of the telephone which remained for a period of two months were considered. In a case like this it was practically impossible for the complainant to adduce any tangible evidence for mental suffering. In the light of the circumstances, the District Forum in exercise of its discretion awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation which in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be characterised as excessive unreasonable and improper so as to warrant interference by the State Commission in appeal. In the reply to the appeal which has been filed by the complainant-respondent a prayer has been made that the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum should be enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- from Rs. 2,000/-. THE complainant did not file any appeal under Section 15 of the Act, if he was dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum in regard to the compensation. Besides that having regard to all the circumstances of the case as held above award of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the complainant by the opposite parties-appellants is just and proper. No other point survives for our consideration in this appeal.

THE result is that this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. In pursuance of the order passed in the appeal on 14.9.1990, the appellants had deposited Rs. 2,000/- with the District Forum, Ajmer. The amount so deposited shall be paid to the complainant-respondent No. 2 against receipt As the amount had been deposited by the appellants, it is made clear that no proceedings for the recovery of the amount or enforcement of the order passed by the District Forum shall be taken. Appeal dismissed.