Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The Counsel for appellant, submitted that, the appellant and his family members were harassed to a great extent by the agents of the OPs and even sent them unnecessary bills for the period, when the instrument, modem and ISDN had already been collected by them on 13.11.2009, on the request of the complainant, for disconnection of the connection. He further submitted that, for such harassment, for a long time and raising unnecessary bills, against non-existing connection , the complainant was required to be adequately compensated, though, on the other hand, the District Forum granted only a sum of Rs.5000/-, as compensation, and Rs.1100/- as costs of litigation, which amounts were too meagre to meet the ends of justice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, needs modification by enhancing the amount of compensation, and litigation charges.

10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The OPs/respondents have not challenged, the order impugned by way of an appeal. The short question, that falls for consideration is, as to whether, the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation and litigation charges, or not. No doubt, as per C-1 acknowledgement slip dated 12.11.2009, the complainant requested the OPs to disconnect his telephone connection. The request was acceded to by the OPs. On acceptance of request of the complainant, the OPs collected the instrument, modem and ISDN on 13.11.2009 vide annexure C-2. Thereafter, the OPs sent a bill, for the period from 17.11.2009 to 18.12.09. He also received bill dated 18.1.2010(annexure C-5) and 18.2.2010(annexure C-6). Since, the instrument, modem and ISDN had already been taken away by the OPs on 13.11.2009 vide annexure C-2, the question of sending the bills for the subsequent periods in relation to the telephone connection, did not at all arise. The OPs, as admitted by them, have already waived off the bills for the months of December,2009, January,2010 & February,2010,during the pendency of the complaint, before the District Forum. After taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum, came to conclusion that though the bill dated 18.12.2009 C-4, dated 18.1.2010 C-5 and dated 18.2.2010 C-6 had already been waived off, by the OPs, during the pendency of the complaint, after the receipt of summons, for appearance, yet there was deficiency in service, but not to such an extent, as to grant, highly excessive compensation, to the complainant. It is settled principle of law, that the Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the cost of the service providers. The compensation, awarded by the Consumer Foras should be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the facts and circumstances and deficiency in service, rendered by the service provider. It should not be unreasonable and excessive, so as to give an impression, to the people, that in the Consumer Foras, any amount of compensation, even for minor deficiencies could be granted. The compensation and costs of litigation awarded, in this case, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be, unfair or meagre. No ground, therefore, is made out, for enhancement of the same. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.