TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER Vs. DISTRICT FORUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties before the District Forum have filed this appeal against the order dated 27.7.1990 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No.331/90 by which they were directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation. The complainant has been arrayed as respondent No.2 in the appeal. The District Forum, Ajmer has also been impleaded as proforma party-respondent No.1. It is not necessary to give a detailed resume of facts leading to this appeal, for, we are concerned with regard to the award of compensation only. The complainant was subscriber of telephone No.22071 and subse- quently that number was changed to 32071. The complainant received a bill dated 14.8.1989 for 2970 calls and demand for Rs.2,500/- was made. A complaint was made that the amount mentioned in the bill was excessive as the number of calls mentioned therein were not made by the complainant. Despite applications nothing was done. On 12.10.1989 the complainant received a Bill for Rs.5,086/- in which the calls mentioned were 5430. In that Bill Rs.16/ were charged for trunk calls. The amount of trunk calls was also wrongly mentioned. He submitted an application on 16.10.1989 protesting that the bill is erroneous. There was correspondence between the complainant and the opposite parties. Against the complainant a demand for Rs.7,588/- was raised and he was asked to deposit this amount by 15.9.1990. There are other facts also which are not necessary to state. The complainant filed the complaint praying that the opposite parties-appellants may be directed to make enquiry regarding the excessive billing and they may be ordered to amend the bills and that a direction may be given to restore the disconnected telephone which had been discon- nected previously. Compensation on account of financial loss, bodily and mental suffering amounting to Rs.10,000/- were also claimed.

(2.) The opposite parties-appellants resisted the complaint. It was stated that in accordance with the order bills have been amended and the complainant paid the amounts mentioned therein and telephone has been restored from 17.3.1990. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant was forced to make payment of the amounts mentioned in the bills. The complainant challenged the calls mentioned therein. The Director, Telecom held that 2700 calls have wrongly been mentioned still the officers of the opposite party No.1 did not agree to that. On account of undesirable attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant was deprived of the facility of telephone for a period of two months on account of the carelessness and inaction. All this resulted in inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. It, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the injury and loss suffered by him on account of the negligence of the opposite parties. Aggrieved the opposite parties have filed this appeal. The complainant-respondent has submitted reply to the appeal today and its copy was delivered to the learned Counsel for the appellants.

(3.) We heard Mr. U. D. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Hope Joseph complainant in person and considered the record in the light of the submissions made by the parties before us. Mr. U. D. Sharma learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate his claim for compensation, as no material was placed on record by him that he suffered monetary loss or inconvenience on account of the disconnection of the telephone which continued for two months. In the absence of any material regarding injury or loss submitted the learned Counsel for the appellants that the award of compensation under Sec.14 (1) (d) of the Act was wholly unjustified. Mr. Joseph stoutly opposed it.