MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE LIMITED Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE limited grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 23rd July, 2005 is against the amount of compensation at Rs. 20,000 awarded towards mental tension and agony and physical harassment and inconvenience suffered by the respondent on account of raising breakage charges of Rs. 1,200 and disconnection of the telephone for more than a year or so and also withdrawing the outgoing facility.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the contention of the Counsel for the appellant the relevant facts needs do to be put in brief. On 16th January, 1999 respondent received a bill wherein besides call charges he was required to pay Rs. 1,200 as breakage charges. On receipt of the bill he contacted the Junior Telecom Officer of the appellant -MTNL and informed him that he had not requested for replacement of the instrument and as to why breakage charge is being demanded from him but he did not get any satisfactory reply. The due date for the bill dated 16.1.1999 was 9.12.99 and he requested the appellant to correct the bill to enable him to make the payment by the due date but his request was not entertained. The appellant withdrew outgoing facility from his telephone on 11.1.2001. The respondent pleaded that on his representation made to the senior officer of the MTNL, DGM(S) gave an order on 22.3.2000 that the breakage charge would be investigated and the telephone be kept under the category RNP instead of DNP. The telephone was restored on 3.4.2001. Thus disconnection of the telephone on 11.1.2001 on account of non -payment of unjustified demand was illegal.

(3.) IT is pertinent to mention that the breakage charges along with surcharge were withdrawn vide order dated 2.5.2001 and the respondent was also given rental rebate for the period 11.1.2001 to 30.4.2001 during which the telephone remained disconnected.