NEENA SHARMA Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -in two separate applications, the applicant/complainant Dr. Neena Sharma has charged the respondent, i. e. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited for adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sec.36a of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP Act in short ). For the loss and damage suffered on account of such practices, the applicant has also claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.10,701 /-. Since both the application as well the complaint pertain to same cause of action arising from the same facts, a common order is passed for the sake of convenience.

(2.) Briefly stated, the applicant is a doctor employed as a Senior Medical Officer in State Insurance Corporation. She had a telephone number 604527 installed at her residential flat No.924, Sector XII, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. On her transfer to Mayapuri Dispensary, she requested for a transfer of her telephone to Mayur Vihar. This was somewhere in May, 1993. An O. B. was issued by the Commercial Officer (South II), Nehru Place office on 21.6.1993. Her telephones installed at R. K. Puram residence was disconnected on 27.6.1993 and was shifted to the new address at Mayur Vihar on 19.7.1993. It remained non-functional for quite some time and started functioning regularly only from November, 1993. The telephone could be installed after approaching the various Authorities of the Telephone Department from time-to-time. In the mean time she received a bill for Rs.435 /- relating to the old subscriber of telephone No.2253590. This amount was waived when she approached the Telephone Adalat. The telephone installed at her new premises remained out of order frequently and it was only in November, 1993, when it started functioning properly. In the process, she suffered on account of bills sent at wrong address as also demand raised at Rs.266/- for the billing cycle of 1.10.1993 and 1.12.1993 - the period when her telephone remained dead. These activities of the respondent being clearly covered under the provisions of Sec.36a of the MRTP Act, it is stated that the directions be issued to the respondent to cease such unfair trade practices carried on at present and not to repeat them in future. In addition, for having suffered loss on account of harassment on the part of the respondent, it is claimed that the applicant be paid compensation.

(3.) On receipt of the complaint/application both Notice of Enquiry as well the Notice were issued requiring the respondent to meet the charges as levelled in these applications. In its reply the respondent denied all the allegations as levelled in the complaint. It is stated that on receipt of the application for shifting of the telephone, the respondent took immediate action. Orders were passed for shifting of the telephone to Mayur Vihar. The Commercial Officer South II issued O. B. letters to SDO at Mayur Vihar. The telephone was installed on 19.7.1993 and became functional immediately thereafter. The applicant/ complainant has wrongly alleged that her old telephone was misused for which no evidence was led. On the other hand the telephone was disconnected on account of non-payment of Rs.455/-. On discovery of the mistake on the part of the respondent, the amount was waived and intimation to this effect was passed on to the applicant. The various visits to the office of the MTNL is not within the knowledge of the respondent and in the absence of any evidence to show that there was any harassment on the part of the respondent, the charge of unfair trade practices cannot be said to have been established against the respondent for which the applicant/ complainant is entitled to compensation as claimed.