SATISH KUMAR Vs. HUTCHISON ESSAR TELECOME LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAIN grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 15.4.2005, passed by the District Forum, whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in not re -activating the mobile telephone for 21 days in two intermission was dismissed is that the District Forum has not taken into consideration the allegation for which he had adduced sufficient proof that the telephone was firstly re -activated after 9 days after receiving the payment of the cash card and again after 13 days.

(2.) WE have perused the impugned order and find that the District Forum had dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the ground that the original activation of the telephone was made on 13.7.2004 and it was reactivated on 21.7.2004 and it appears that some fault might have occurred between 13.7.2004 to 21.7.2004 and since it was temporary intermission service no harassment was caused attracting Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation.

(3.) MAY be the amount of compensation sought by the appellant was on the much higher side but the allegation of the appellant that the non -activation of the telephone for 21 days in two stretches should have been considered in the light of the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 rendering the provider of service liable for compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by the consumer if there is negligence on the part of the OP. The deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act means: