UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs Anil kumar

-PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint against the respondent BSNL, alleging deficiency in service by the latter.

VERY briefly facts leading to filing the complaint were that the petitioner who is a practising Advocate, applied for telephone connection, while at Bokaro, after depositing a sum of Rs. 1,000 on 27. 4. 1993. He was provided telephone No. 6951 which according to the petitioner/complainant had an STD facility, whereas he has asked for telephone without STD facility. Subsequently he applied for shifting telephone from Bokaro to Patna. The telephone was installed in Patna only after a gap of six months. In between several bills were raised which according to the petitioner were wrong; even though he paid some of them. It was his case that these were wrongly raised bills, thus, alleging deficiency in service on account of providing STD facility when he did not ask for it, delay in shifting the telephone and raising wrong bills, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint only to the extent of refund of Rs. 2,415 by the respondent to the petitioner. Both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission and both of them were dismissed by the State Commission after hearing the parties. It is in these circumstances that a revision petition has been filed before us by the petitioner/complainant mainly seeking following reliefs: " (a) This complainant be allowed to refund of imaginary, forged and concocted Bill of Rs. 3,715 he was forced to pay on 13. 11. 1996 with interest @ 18% pendent lite. (b) This complainant be allowed to refund of security money of Rs. 1,000 as per rate of 11% being on fixed deposit in S. B. I. from 27. 4. 1993 (after declaring the calculated interest on it) pendent lite (c) This complainant be allowed to get Rs. 10,000 by way of raised cost of litigation. (d) This complainant be allowed to the cost of correspondence being Rs. 200 with whatever this Hon''ble National Commission at Delhi deems fit and proper. (e) This complainant be allowed to the compensation or so much delay in shifting of the telephone over 8 months being within the same State of Bihar particularly for the suffering without a telephone on account of his wife''s serious illness besides on account of profes-sional loss to an advocate and over 8 months particularly the suffering this petitioner had undergone amount to Rs. 75,000. (f) Clarify then when Rs. 800 has been charged by All India shifting of an old telephone was it permissible and legal to charge forever as new connection at Patna shifted. "

We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and find that the District Forum has dealt extensively with the first point, i. e. , with regard to the bill of Rs. 3,715. Both the lower Fora also observed, in our view correctly, that Rs. 1,000 had already been refunded to the petitioner vide cheque No. AF/185538 dated 13. 5. 1999 amounting to Rs. 1,792, which also comprise refund of security money deposited by the petitioner at Bokaro on 29. 4. 1993.

We also see no merit in the demand of Rs. 800 being the shifting charges. As per material on record brought by BSNL these are the regular shifting charges for ''instrument and shifting''. Hence we see no merit in this plea.

COMING to other reliefs, i. e. , Rs. 10,000 as litigation charges, Rs. 200 for correspondence and Rs. 75,000 on account of professional loss after carefully gone through the record we find that the petitioner has not come with clean hands before the consumer Fora as in one instance the security of Rs. 1,000 deposit has been refunded but he continued to plead for refund and, secondly, whenever the petitioner was able to satisfy the respondents about error in the bill they have been rectified from time-to-time, hence we find no merit in this contention of the petitioner, who pleaded his case in person. However, we find that the respondents were deficient in two respects - firstly, admittedly the petitioner in Bokaro as given a telephone connection with STD facility whereas he had sought the telephone connection without STD facility. The explanation given by the respondent in this regard is that this was done as "no pair was available under non-STD facility, hence the telephone connection was opened with STD facility". We are not impressed with this particular explanation. Similarly we find that there has been delay of over six months in providing the connection in Patna on transfer of telephone from Bokaro to Patna. Explanation to this not really forthcoming and leaves us unimpressed. Thus, to deprive a practising Advocate of the use of this facility of telephone for over six months with no prima facie fault on the part of the petitioner, in our view, is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, in the light of which, in our view both the lower Fora erred in not granting any compensation to the petitioner.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, the respondent is directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and cost of Rs. 2,500 to the petitioner/complainant within a period of six weeks failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to proceed against the respondent under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition stands allowed only in above terms. Revision Petition allowed.