Vijay Kumar Verma vs B.S.N.L.

SINCE both these appeals arise from the same order dated 5.2.2004 in Complaint No. 118/02 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) directing the appellant (of Appeal No. 93/04) BSNL to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards deficiency in service on their part, they are being disposed of together.

THE complainant/respondent (in Appeal No. 93/04) undisputably obtained a telephone connection No. 24789 from the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter called ''Sanchar Nigam'' for short). A bill for Rs. 3,952/- was issued to him by the Sanchar Nigam for the month of February, 2002. THE complainant felt that the bill was excessive, hence matter was taken to Telephone Adalat convened by the Sanchar Nigam. THE Telephone Adalat upheld the protest of the complainant and directed the Sanchar Nigam to give him rebate of Rs. 2,971/-. Thus the bill for the month of February, 2002 stood reduced from Rs. 3,952/- to Rs. 981/-. A revised bill accordingly was issued by Sanchar Nigam on 24.5.2004. THE said bill was undisputedly paid by the complainant after the decision of the Telephone Adalat on 24.5.2004. THE complainant there after requested Sanchar Nigam to restore his telephone connection in view of the payment of bill as above. He also submitted an application dated 27.5.2002. However, according to the complainant, restoration of telephone connection did not take place till 1.8.2002 and thus the telephone remained disconnected even after payment of the bill for about 2 months. The complainant, therefore, sought redressal by filing the complaint and claimed damages of Rs. 10,000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of Sanchar Nigam, as alleged above.

Sanchar Nigam resisted the complaint. The stand of the Sanchar Nigam basically was that as the telephone connection was restored on 3.7.2002, there was no deficiency in service on the part of Sanchar Nigam.

THE District Forum in the impugned order observed that the reconnection did not take place till 1.8.2002 and accordingly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of Sanchar Nigam. THErefore, besides granting relief to the complainant by exempting him from payment of rental charges for the period of disconnection, compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded by the District Forum. The appellant Sanchar Nigam in Appeal No. 93/04 assailed the impugned order. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant Sanchar Nigam that award of compensation against it, was not justified. It was submitted that the officials of Sanchar Nigam acted promptly after the payment of bill by the complainant on 24.5.2002 and reconnected the complainant''s telephone connection on 3.7.2002. It was, therefore, submitted that since there was no deficiency in service on the part of Sanchar Nigam, there was no justification for the District Forum to award compensation.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainant who has preferred Appeal No. 90/2004, supported the finding of the learned District Forum regarding the deficiency in service on the part of Sanchar Nigam. However, it was submitted that compensation as awarded is not sufficient and deserves to be enhanced. As noticed earlier, it is not in dispute that the grievance of the complainant regarding the bill for the month of February, 2002, was settled by the Telephone Adalat and the contentions of the complainant that the bill is excessive was upheld and substantial rebate was given to him. It is also not in dispute that the revised amount of bill was paid by the complainant on 24.5.2002. However, the telephone connection of the complainant was reconnected belatedly in the month of August, 2002. However, according to Sanchar Nigam it was reconnected on 3.7.2002. District Forum in para 6 of the impugned order has considered the matter and observed that the bill for the month of July, 2002 indicates that the opening meter reading and closing reading was the same which shows that telephone was not in use in the month of July, 2002. Obviously this supports the contentions of the complainant that the reconnection did not take place till 1.8.2002. It is not conceivable that even if the telephone connection was reconnected on 3.7.2002 as is the stand of Sanchar Nigam, the same would not have been utilised by the complainant even once for the whole month of July, 2002. It is, therefore, clear that despite payment of bill on 24.5.2002 by the complainant his telephone connection was not reconnected till 1.8.2002. The finding as above of the District Forum appears to be based on proper appreciation of material and circumstances of the case. The same is affirmed. It may be mentioned here that even if the reconnection was made by the Sanchar Nigam on 3.7.2002 as has been their contentions, even then the same was highly belated as the reconnection was done after the delay of about 1 month and 10 days, which certainly cannot be considered to be prompt and efficient service and would amount to deficiency in service.

THEREFORE, Appeal No. 93/04 of Sanchar Nigam does not deserve to be allowed. It is clear from the material and circumstances of the case that for one reason or other the complainant was deprived of utilising his telephone for a considerable period prior to its reconnection on 1.8.2002. In the circumstances, the compensation awarded by the District Forum deserves to be enhanced. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. After considering the contentions of the complainant we find just and proper to award Rs. 7,000/- as compensation.

ACCORDINGLY, Appeal No. 93/04 of Sanchar Nigam is dismissed. Appeal No. 90/04 of the complainant is allowed and the impugned order is modified as below: "The Sanchar Nigam shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7,000/- (seven thousand) as compensation instead of Rs. 5,000/- as awarded by District Forum besides the rebate in payment of bills as awarded by District Forum. The complainant shall also get cost of each of these appeals which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/- for each of the Appeal Nos. 90/2004 and 93/2004. The amount payable under this order shall be paid to the complainant/deposited by Sanchar Nigam within 2 months from the date of this order failing which interest @ 12% p.a. shall also be payable on the amount of compensation from the date of default. Ordered accordingly.