TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER, SANGRUR vs NIRANJAN DASS

THE opposite parties before the District Forum have filed this appeal against the order dated August 17, 1991, passed by the District Forum, Sangrur, in complaint case No. 35 of 1991, by which it was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 500/- to the complainant as compensation. THE appellant was further directed to pay Rs. 110/- as litigation expenses and to pay simple interest on the security deposit of Rs. 800/- @ 10% per annum from the date of the installation of the telephone connection till the date of the impugned order.

IT is not necessary to give detailed resume of facts leading to this appeal for we are concerned with the award of compensation only. The complainant was a subscriber of telephone No. 3249. IT was alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties-appellants had illegally disconnected his telephone on two occasions despite the fact that the amounts of the bills stood deposited by him in the office of the opposite parties though later on the connection of his telephone was restored. IT was alleged that when the complainant showed the receipts regarding the payment of the bills to the Accounts Officer, he misbehaved with him. Because of the disconnection of the telephone the complainant claimed to have suffered inconvenience and mental agony and therefore, he claimed damages amounting to Rs. 5,000/- besides litigation expenses and interest on the amount of security deposited by him. The opposite parties resisted the complaint. The District Forum came to the conclusion that on account of undesirable attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant was deprived of the telephone facility for some days and all this resulted in inconvenience and mental agony to him. IT, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by him on account of the negligence of the opposite parties and also awarded him the other reliefs as indicated above. Aggrieved, the opposite parties have filed this appeal. Mr. Kulwinder Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants has 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 inconvenience on account of the disconnection of his telephone. In the absence of any material regarding injury or loss, submitted the learned Counsel for the opposite parties-appellant, that the award of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''the Act'') was wholly unjustified. Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously opposed it

The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the District Forum was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 500/- to the complainant. We find no force in this contention. 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 was stated that on account of the actions detailed in the complaint, the complainant suffered inconvenience and mental agony and therefore, a sum of Rs. 5000/- may be awarded to him as compensation. In the version of the case, the opposite parties have denied the averments made in the complaint. The learned Counsel for the appellants has, however, candidly conceded that two bills of electricity charges were issued to the complainant and he had made the payments of those bills and that his telephone connection was restored later on. The fact relating to inconvenience and mental agony entitling him for compensation was, however, denied. 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 a 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) observerd as under: - "....In circumstances such as those obtaining in the present case where it is practically impossible to adduce tangible evidence regarding the actual monetry 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 agony and that there was deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties. In a case where a person is deprived 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 all the facts and circumstances of the case before awarding the compensation of Rs. 500/- to the complainant which cannot be characterised as excessive and improper so as to warrant interference by the State Commission in appeal. No other point was urged. The result is that this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. Under the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.