MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. J K AGGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against order dated 13.9.2000, passed by District Forum (East), in Complaint Case No.497/98 - entitled Shri J. K. Aggrawal V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The respondent Shri J. K. Aggrawal had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the respondent was running a Rolling Mill in the name and style of KAYCEE Electricals at B-7, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi, manufacturing copper wires, rods, strips etc. It was stated that the respondent was having his godown at 43-A, Dilshad Garden, G. T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. It was further stated that the telephone of the respondent, bearing No.2283200, installed at B-7, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdrara, Delhi, was on PBX Board with one of the extensions, installed at the godown, situated at 43-A, Dilshad Garden. It was stated that day to day business transactions of the respondent were being carried out from the factory and godown over the telephone extension. It was stated in the complaint, that the telephone extension of the abovesaid telephone, at the godown of the respondent, was out of order for 5 weeks despite the fact that as many as eight written complaints, as detailed in para 4 of the complaint, were made to the various Authorities of the appellant for setting right the extension of the telephone in question. It was stated that besides lodging written complaints, the representative of the respondent also visited the Office of SDO (Phones) and lodged complaints in the 'complaint Register' too several times. The grievance of the respondent, in the complaint, filed by him, before the District Forum, was that despite all efforts, the defect was not removed and as a result of above deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the respondent had suffered heavy loss in business transactions. It was prayed by the respondent, in the complaint, that the appellant MTNL be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as penalty, a sum of Rs.2,500/- on account of expenses incurred on conveyance and other charges. It was also prayed that the appellant be directed to set in order the telephone extension and in default be directed to pay a sum of Rs.400/- per day till the rectification of the defect in the telephone. It was also prayed that the appellant be directed not to charge telephone rent and service tax for the period during which the extension remained out of order. It was also prayed that the appellant be directed to give proper service to the consumers and not to harass them.

(3.) The claim of the respondent, in the District Forum, was resisted by the appellant and in the written statement/written version filed on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the telephone in question being an 'electro mechanical device' was prone to go faulty at times. It was stated that the complaints received were attended to and defects were rectified in time. It was stated that the complaint filed by the respondent be dismissed being devoid of substance.