AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE instant complaint is filed by the Telephone Services Society, a voluntary socio-welfare organisation through its secretary Mr. T.S. Srinivasan.
THE case of the complainant in short is that Mrs. Mouthushi Acharya, a member of the petitioner organisation is a beneficiary of telephone No. 545777, a close relative of the subscriber of the telephone. Mrs. Moutushi Acharya, a senior journalist of Statesman, Calcutta stays at the flat of her relatives where the telephone is installed alongwith her aged, ailing mother who is an acute heart patient. She received a telephone bill dated 5.6.95 for Cycle 6/95 and the same bill was duly paid by her on 21.6.95. That inspite of payment of such bill Mrs. Acharya received reminder notice on 21.8.95 and soon thereafter the line was disconnected on 4.9.95. That the amount in question and/or bill in question was duly paid on 21.6.95 almost 2 to 3 months prior to such disconnection. Being a senior journalist Mrs. Acharya faced lot of problems in the matter of keeping contact with all concerned and also could not contact with the Doctors as an when required for the treatment of her mother.
Due to such wrongful and illegal disconection of telephone line on 4.9.95 Mrs. Acharya suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per day for which an account in details was submitted. Mrs. Acharya claimed-this amount per day on account of her loss and/or financial expenditure required for keeping touch with the Doctors, Association, Reporters etc. and on account of mental and physical torture and also for damage suffered by her on account of loss of her prestige etc.
MRS. Acharya immediately after such disconnection on 4.9.95 contacted the respondents and requested for restoration of the line but without any result. Ultimately the line was restored on 30.9.95 after a prolonged suffering of 25 days disconnection. Accordingly she claimed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per day for 25 days i.e. an amount of Rs. 6,25,000/-. The petitioner moved the petition upon notice to opposite party on 28th November, 1992 and respondent appeared. Thereafter the matter was taken on several days but the respondent failed and neglected to justify their cases by filing any written objection. In the meantime the matter was finally heard on 2.2.96 and reserved for orders. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission painfully observes that the senior journalist Mrs. Acharya has suffered loss and mental torture for wrongful disconnection for 25 days without any fault on her part. The respondent telephone authorities are so callous and negligent that inspire of the payment of the bill in question in time they wrongfully disconnected the supply after about 1 and months of such payment. More so, the respondent did not take any step to restore the supply during 25 days from 4.9.95 to 30.9.95 when the petitioner has to face immense financial loss, mental torture and agony for which we consider an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- would be just and proper for awarding compensation to the petitioner to meet the loss, damage. Accordingly, we direct the respondent, to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh) as compensation to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
MR. Justice A.K. Bhattacharya, President-This complaint has been filed by Telephone Services Society through its Secretary MR. T.S. Srinivasan, as complainant against the illegal disconnection of telephone No. 545-777. The petitioner''s case is that one MRs. Mautushi Acharya, a member of the petitioner association, is the beneficiary of the aforesaid telephone which actually belongs to her uncle Ashima Nanda Guha. She received a telephone bill dated 5.6.95 for cycle 6/95 which was duly paid on 21.6.95. Thereafter, a reminder notice was received by her on 21.8.95 and on 4.9.95 the telephone was disconnected. MRs. Acharya claims to be a senior journalist of The Statesman, Calcutta staying at the flat of her uncle with her aged mother. After repeated reminders and requests the line was restored on 30.9.95. According to the complainant, MRs. Acharya being a journalist by professsion suffered loss for the disconnection of the telephone line for twenty five days. It is also the case of the complainant that MRs. Acharya''s ailing mother needed the service of the telephone for her illness. For all these reasons she also suffered mental agony and accordingly the complainant has demanded a compensation of Rs. 6,25,000/- at the rate of 25,000/- per day and also an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as cost. MR. Kar has delivered the judgment ex-parte in this case and has allowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by MRs. Acharya. As stated above, Mrs. Acharya is not the owner of the telephone. Her claim is based as a beneficiary. The question is whether the complainant can successfully lodge a complaint in respect of the telephone for the illegal disconnection of the same as beneficiary of the true owner and if so, if the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner is correct. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 only a "consumer dispute" is justiceable by a Consumer Disputes Redressal Agency. A consumer dispute has been defined in Section 2(1 )(e) of the Act as a dispute there the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, Under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act a complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that: (i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader; (ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act. A "complainant" has been defined under Section 2(1)(b) of the Act as - (i) a consumer; or (ii) any voluntary Consumer Association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) the Central Government or any State Government, who or which makes a complaint; (iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest.
THUS a registered voluntary Consumer Association as referred to in Section 2(1)(b)(ii) may be a complainant and is entitled to file a complaint under the Act giving rise to a consumer dispute. In the instant case a consumer dispute has been raised by making an allegation that the Telephone Authorities are guilty of deficiency in service for illegally disconnecting the telephone line of Mr. Ashima Nanda Guha which is used inter alia by Mrs. Moutashi Acharya as a beneficiary. The point is if this is a valid complaint under the Act.
AS quoted above, a complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complainant inter alia that the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect. Tagged to the definition of a complainant in Section 2(1)(b)(ii) a voluntary registered Consumer ASsociation may file a complaint by making an allegation that the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by it suffer from deficiency in any respect. Thus the allegation must be that the services hired or availed of by a complainant (in this case a voluntary Consumer ASsociation) suffer from deficiency in any respect. Do in this case any services hired or availed of by the complainant suffer from any defect ? Obviously here no services have been hired or availed of by the complainant ASsociation, or for that matter by its secretary. If not, how can the ASsociation make a valid complaint? It may be noted that the words "services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him" have been substituted for the words "the services mentioned in the complaint" by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 93. Similar amendment has been made in Clause (ii) of Section 2(1)(c) by substituting the words "the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him" for the words "the goods mentioned in the complaint". The above analysis of law shows that a voluntary Consumer Association as a complainant can file a complaint in respect of any goods bought or any services hired only when the goods are bought by the Association or the services are hired by it. In respect of other matters mentioned in the definition of complaint in Clauses (1)(iv) and (v) can, however, be filed by a voluntary Consumer Association in its complaint. So in the present case no complaint alleging any deficiency can be filed by a voluntary Consumer Association unless the deficiency refers to any services hired or availed of by it. The complaint filed by the complainant in this case is, therefore, not maintainable.
Even the claim of the complainant Association that Mrs. Acharya, an alleged member of the Association, can make a successful claim as a beneficiary of a telephone owned by her uncle is doubtful. The owner of the telephone, namely, A. Guha has not made any complaint. Neither has he alleged any deficiency in service. Can a person on the basis of her residence in a flat and using the telephone of the owner maintain any action for deficiency in service of the telephone? It has not been claimed that the telephone has been acquired by Mrs. Acharya or she has acquired any right to use the telephone on any basis. Thus if the other relatives residing with Mr. A. Guha alleged similar deficiency for loss of profession practiced by them individually, simultaneously, will such actions be maintainable? The answer is clearly in the negative. So the complaint filed by the complainant on the basis of a claim advanced by Mrs. Acharya is certainly not maintainable.
EVEN as regards the quantum of damages claimed and choosing the State Commission as the Forum of initiating the case, it must be said that the claim has not been proved by any evidence, much less any legal evidence, from the person who actually claims to have suffered loss. The amount of loss is also fantastically high. There is no doubt that this amount has been claimed only to bring the case within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. For all the above reasons I hold that the case is not maintainable and the claim is baseless. The case is accordingly dismissed. Complaint allowed.