State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chief General Manager, B.S.N.L. And ... vs Sh. Mahesh Chandra Bansal on 2 June, 2006
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL - 3 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL DEHRA DUN APPEAL NO. 138 / 2005 Chief General Manager, B.S.N.L. and Others ......Appellants Versus Sh. Mahesh Chandra Bansal .....Respondent Sh. Manoj Kohli, Learned Counsel for the Appellants None for the Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member Dated: 02.06.2006 ORDER
(Per:
Mr. Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is an appeal against the order dated 02.05.2005 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Complainant
- respondent's telephone No. 222016 was disconnected on 12.11.2002 on the basis of non-payment of the bill for the period 16.06.2002 to 15.08.2002. He represented and even gave notice intimating that the bill had been paid on 18.10.2002. It was verified and the appellant pleaded that the connection was restored on 13.11.2002. District Forum did not accept the defence claim and found that the telephone remained disconnected till the Consumer Complaint was filed on 17.01.2003 and that it was after the said date that the connection was restored. On this ground, the District Forum held that the appellant made deficiency in service and allowed the complaint granting compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- towards expenses of litigation.
3. None appeared on behalf of complainant - respondent. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the material on record. There is no dispute that no bill was outstanding against the complainant - respondent when his telephone was disconnected on 12.11.2002. It was alleged in the written statement that the connection was, however, restored on 13.11.2002 when it was verified that the payment of last bill had already been made. The claim was not correct because in paragraph No. 17 of the written statement, it was also pleaded that on the filing of the complaint, it was discovered that there was some fault in the exchange card of the telephone of the complainant - respondent and the fault was then corrected in order to restore the connection. The averments of the affidavit of Sri R.P. Tewari, Senior T.O.A. (Legal) in the office of Chief General Manager, B.S.N.L., Haldwani establish this fact. In view thereof, the District Forum was justified in coming to the conclusion that the telephone remained disconnected till 17.01.2003 when the complaint was filed. There was thus deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the complainant - respondent having put to hardship was rightly held entitled to compensation.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant however argued that compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- is exorbitant as the complainant - respondent was not able to prove special damages. We see merit in the submission in view of the lack of reference to the evidence in the impugned order as regards loss or damage by reason of the disconnection of the telephone. Therefore, considering the hardship and inconvenience suffered by the complainant - respondent for about two months, compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- only shall be just and proper. To that extent, the compensation awarded by the District Forum need to be reduced.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal succeed partly and is to be disposed of as such.
6. Appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the complainant - respondent is held entitled to receive Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as expenses of litigation from the appellant. The appellant shall pay the amount within 30 days of this order. Costs of this appeal are made easy.
(MS.
LUXMI SINGH) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)