TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER vs AUTO SERVICE

THIS appeal arises against the order of District Forum Panaji, Dated 5.2.1993 passed in Complaint No.292of 1992. On a complaint from M/s. Auto Service, District Forum awarded the complainant Rs. 5,000.00 as compensation in view of proved deficiency in the service of Telephone Department.

IT has been alleged by the complainant that he was charged excessive bills for use of his telephone and that his telephone was disconnected illegally on the basis of defective bills. The complainant alleged that although he made payments of excessive bills, his telephone was not restored for a period of one year and therefore, he had to approach the High Court for relief. IT is further alleged that only after the complainant filed Writ Petition in the High Court, his telephone was reconnected. District Forum, therefore, held that the complainant has proved his allegations and awarded to the complainant Rs. 5,000.00 as compensation for the alleged negligence in the service of telephone department. We have heard Shri G. R. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant and Shri K. U. Aras, Advocate for the respondent. Shri Sharma tried to argue that the complainant was at fault for non-payment of telephone charges and, therefore, his telephone was correctly disconnected. As regards the complainant''s allegations that even though he made payments, he was not given reconnection till he approached the High Court. We find that allegations made by complainant are substantially proved. The complainant''s telephone was disconnected on 9.10.1990 for non-payment of telephone dues and when he made payment of the entire dues on 28.1.1992, he was not given reconnection till he filed Writ Petition in the High Court in the month of September, 1992. Copy of the order of High Court is on record and it is found that the Hon''ble Court by its order dated 21.9.1992 held that the department has already reconnected the telephone of the petitioner.

According to Shri Sharma, telephone was reconnected on 8.9.1992. It is, therefore, obvious that O.Ps. were deficient in its service inasmuch as for a period of 8 months, the complainant was without telephone connection although he had paid the entire dues. The complainant was granted telephone connection when he approached the High Court. Under these circumstances, we find that the District Forum was correct in its view to hold that the services of the Telephone Department were deficient.

THE District Forum has granted Rs. 5000.00 as compensation to the complainant. We find that the compensation has been worked out without any basis. THE complainant has also not placed on record as to what is his income annually and what is the loss sustained by him for a period of 8 months for want of telephone. In our view, amount of Rs. 5000.00 worked out by the District Forum appears to be arbitrary and without any basis. At the same time, we find that the complainant was forced to approach the High Court to seek relief. THErefore, it would meet the ends of justice, if we reduce the amount of compensation from Rs. 5000.00 to Rs. 2000.00. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER THE appeal is partly allowed. Amount of compensation is reduced to Rs. 2,000.00 from Rs. 5,000.00. THE amount of compensation be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant can initiate proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeal partly allowed.