BIRENDRA NATH KHARA Vs. DISTRICT ENGINEER INTERNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is complainant's appeal against the order of the Forum dated 3.5.1999 allowing the case in part on contest with cost of Rs.100/- only. There was a direction for restoration of telephone service of the complainant with immediate effect and to allow rental rebate for the entire period during which the telephone of the complainant remained dead. The claim for compensation was however disallowed.

(2.) It is accepted that the complainant approached the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Telephone Authority. He has also claimed Rs.20,000/- as compensation. The telephone of the complainant often went out of order intermittently. The complainant approached the various Authorities of the department seeking redress but the Authorities did not take steps in time. The case of the opposite party was that the telephone went out of order due to external cable fault which is beyond their control. So far as the claim for compensation is concerned their case is that it can be awarded only on recognised principle for quantification of loss or injury suffered by the complainant and not arbitrarily. The Forum noticed that there was really no negligence on the part of the Telephone Department. It was however observed that the repeated disruption of telephone service caused inconvenience in some form or other to the complainant. Since the complainant could not establish negligence, the claim for compensation was negatived. There was further ground for disallowing the claim for compensation. According to the Forum the complainant having failed to quantify the loss or injury suffered by him no compensation could be awarded.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Forum was not justified in disallowing the claim for compensation. He has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority V/s. M. K. Gupta, to contend that Consumer Forum or Commission is empowered to award compensation in deserving cases. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law but the fact remains whether in the absence of evidence to establish loss or injury to complainant any compensation can be awarded. It is further to be considered whether in the absence of evidence quantifying the amount of loss or injury a Consumer Forum or Commission can award compensation. Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited a decision of the National Commission in the case of Commercial Officer, Telecom District Manager, Patna V/s. Bihar State Ware Housing Corporation, to contend that where there is absolutely no material to show the extent of loss or injury caused to the complainant, a nominal amount may be awarded as compensation. Here in this case there was practically no material to quantify the loss or damage alleged to have been suffered by the complainant. The Forum noticed that the complainant was somewhat inconvenienced because of interruption in the service of the telephone. There is no evidence to establish the extent of loss or injury suffered by the complainant in consequence. Learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to a decision of this Commission wherein it has been held that Consumer Forums are not meant for charity to the consumer. It is to assess the loss on the same principle as it is assessed by a Civil Court. This Commission observed further that the claim for compensation must be substantiated by sufficient evidence and the compensation has to be assessed not arbitrarily, but on the basis of the well-accepted legal principles. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the rental rebate which is due to the complainant has not been given so far by way of adjustment from the regular telephone bills. According to him this also constitutes negligence on the part of the department. The department has failed to show that the rental rebate as ordered by the Forum has been granted. In view of the circumstances disclosed and on the principles of authority we are inclined to award a nominal compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) to the complainant which we hereby do. The judgment of the Court below is affirmed with the modification that the complainant would be entitled to a nominal compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) from the opposite parties. With this observation appeal be disposed of.