DIV ENGINEER CALCUTTA TELEPHONES Vs. SOUMEN KUMAR MODAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent who appears in person. Vide order dated 16.8.1999 the Forum allowed the case of the complainant and passed an award for compensation aggregating Rs.18,379/- and cost of Rs.500/- with a direction to the present appellant to pay the amount within two months from this date. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the telephone of the complainant remained out of order for a total period of about 51 days and not for a period of 123 days in two phases as observed by the Forum. According to him the telephone remained out of order because of external fault over which they had no control. He submits that specific defence was taken in the written version in this regard. He submits, therefore, that the Forum was not justified in awarding compensation for such a huge amount. Another ground on which he challenges the order of the Forum is with regard to the fact that no quantification for compensation has been made by the complainant so as to justify his claim. He submits that at best the complainant is entitled to get rental rebate for the period of 51 days for which the telephone did not function. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is challenged by the complainant who is respondent here and who appears in person. The complainant is an Advocate. He submits that it can be imagined the difficulty faced by the Lawyer for non-functioning of the telephone for such a long period. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the rental rebate has been granted for 51 days. This is, however, disputed by the complainant. At least there is no paper to show before this Commission to show that rental rebate for this period was granted. In our opinion, the award of compensation is too high. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the order of this Commission on 19.7.2000 whereby the impugned order was stayed. He submits that because of the order of stay the order of the Forum could not be complied with. It appears from the body of judgment that the Forum did not take into consideration the heart disease of the complainant and ailments of his wife in the absence of any prescription and certificate. However, the Forum observed that a general compensation @ Rs.15/- per day should be allowed to the complainant on account of professiona loss. The Forum noticed that there was no explanation as to why the external fault remained unattended to or not rectified within a reasonably short period. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that because of external fault the defect could not be remedied. We have considered the submission of the parties and think that the award of compensation is too excessive. In our opinion, the complainant is entitled to get rental rebate for a period of 51 days for which admittedly the telephone was not functioning. There is no material to show that such rebate had been granted prior to the order of stay was passed. Anyway, we direct the appellant to grant rental rebate for a period of 51 days by way of adjusting from the next bill if not already done. We consider it expedient to award a compensation of Rs.1,000/- for dis-functioning for the period in question. With this modification, the judgment is affirmed and the appeal be disposed of. The element of cost awarded by the Forum is set aside.