State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Om Parkash Sharma vs Bsnl on 27 July, 2006
H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SHIMLA
Appeal No. 189/2004.
Date of Decision
27.7.2006.
Mr. Om Prakash Sharma, S/o Sh. Thakur Dass
R/o Dayawant Building,
Shiv Puri, Shimla 171 001.
. . . Appellant.
Versus
Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd., BSNL Office,
SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla 171 009.
. . . Respondent.
Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar
Goel (Retd.), President.
Honble
Mr. Narinder Singh Thakur, Member.
Honble
Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Whether Approved for reporting ? No.
For the Appellant. Mr. Shashi Buushan Singh Chandel,
Advocate.
For the Respondent.
Mr. Ratish Sharma,
Advocate.
O R D E R :
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President .
Appellant was the complainant before the District Forum below, in Consumer Complaint No. 511/2002.
Vide its order dated 6.5.2004 complaint was disposed of in the following terms:-
5. In view of the above, we hereby direct the OP-BSNL through its General Manager to grant rebate in the rental for the period 01.09.2002 to 04.10.2002 and also to pay litigation cost of Rs. 500/-. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to the damages. This order be complied with by the OP within a period of forty five days from today. The file after due completion be consigned to records room.
2. Grievance made by the appellant in the complaint filed before the District Forum was, that his telephone remained dead from 1.9.2002 to 4.10.2002, as such respondent may be directed not to charge rent for this period. He also prayed for quashing the bill dated 11th October, 2002 Annexure C-1 filed with the complaint. Besides praying for damages to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-, and also other reliefs be passed in his favour.
3. In support of his case the appellant stated that the telephone was dead between 1.9.2002 to 4.10.2002, he gave specific complaint number in paragraph 4. In addition to stating the fact that when on other occasions he made the complaint at No.198, he was informed that complaint was already registered. Fault was detected on 4th October, 2002 and was rectified at 3:00 PM. Since there was deficiency in service, therefore, complaint was filed for the grant of above reliefs. Respondent when put to notice has contested the claim as according to him Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is a bar for maintaining this complaint and appellant had no cause of action to file the same because there was no deficiency of service. While denying the facts detailed in paragraph 4 of the complaint, reference made to 3 specific complaints with dates such facts have neither been specifically admitted nor denied. At the same time those can also not be said to have been denied by necessary implications. What is the effect of such a pleading on the part of the respondent, hardly needs to be explained.
4. To the contrary there are two stands of the respondent, one is that whenever a complaint was received regarding telephone in question it was properly attended to without any delay. This is stated in certificate of JTO which is countersigned by SDO, Annexure R-1. Alongwith this R-1, a photostat copy of the fault card was also annexed wherein amongst other things mentioned, it is mentioned that no faults recorded on this telephone since 3.9.1999. In case there was no complaint received after 3rd September, 1999, there was no question of any complaint having been attended thereafter. Whereas no advantage can be obtained by the respondent from Annexure R-1 as it is general and vague in its nature without disclosing as to what is the date of its issue and to which period it relates to. Reason for making this observation is that it is specific case of the appellant that his telephone remained dead between 1.9.2002 to 4.10.2002. Above all Annexure R-1 and the fault card are self contradictory and mutually destructive.
5. Faced with this situation Mr. Sharma on behalf of the respondent urged that appellant had paid the bill Annexure C-1 in the sum of Rs. 881/-for the effective calls numbering 510, net chargeable calls made, in addition to free calls. Therefore per Mr. Sharma telephone was very much functional and it was not dead at any point of time. We are unable to appreciate this submission for the simple reason that it is a matter of common knowledge that bi-monthly bills are issued by the respondent which includes the rental as well as bill for the use of telephone. Therefore if amount of Annexure C-1 if any was paid, it was for the calls it can safely be said as well as inferred, that it pertains to the period beyond 4.10.2002, after removal of fault when it was restored.
6. Mr. Sharma also submitted on behalf of the respondent that his client did not object and/or challenge the order of the District Forum below, keeping in view the petty amount involved in it. We are not ready to accept this submission because when the telephone was non-functional, only then the appellant was held not liable to pay the rental from 1.9.2002 to 4.10.2002.
7. Position of a lawyer can be better imagined than explained whose telephone remains dead for more than a month, because it not only handicaps him, but also leaves his clients to raise so many assumptions and presumptions as to why the telephone is not functional. Thus in our opinion appellant is also entitled to compensation, in addition to the cost of litigation allowed by the District Forum below. Ordered accordingly.
8. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion while allowing this appeal it is ordered that in addition to Rs. 500/- allowed as litigation cost, the appellant is also held entitled for compensation on account of harassment and inconvenience caused to him in the sum of Rs. 2000/- and appeal to this extent is allowed by modifying the order passed by the District Forum below.
Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.
Shimla.
27th July, 2006. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel )Retd.
President.
(Narinder Singh Thakur), Member.
(Saroj Sharma), Karan* Member.