RAJENDRA PRASAD SAXENA Vs. M T N L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 19.9.1997, passed by District Forum No.-IV in Complaint Case No.569/1997 (old No.66/1996) - entitled Shri Rajendra Prasad Saxena V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had applied for a telephone connection in the OYT/g category on 10.7.1995 and had also deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- as per the requirement of the respondents against registration No. I. XR/oyt/g/r/013987. In pursuance of the said registration, an OB No.36224100001 was issued by respondent No.2 on 24.7.1995. Since no telephone connection was provided to the appellant till 21.8.1995, the appellant contacted respondent No.2 and was assured that his telephone would be installed within a fortnight. However, despite repeated visits no telephone was provided to the appellant and on 4.10.1995 respondent No.2 informed the appellant that the grant of telephone connection was not feasible, for want of underground cable pair, however the work for providing additional underground cable pair had been taken up and was in progress and was likely to be completed by the first week of October, 1995 and that the connection to the appellant would be provided by November, 1995. But despite that no progress was made in that regard by the respondent and as such the appellant sought the refund of the security amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited by him with the respondents, together with interest. Since the cheque for refund did not reach him, the appellant approached the learned District Forum under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for directions to the respondents to pay him Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation on account of mental agony, as well as professional loss and another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and damages for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

(3.) The respondents however did not file any reply/written version or affidavit by way of evidence before the District Forum despite having been afforded due opportunities for the same.