MAHANGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. RAJA S BHOSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is an appeal against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No. 112 of 1991. The said complaint was filed by the present Respondent Mr. Raja S. Bhosale against the present Petitioner. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Bombay. The case of the Complainant was that he had hired the services of the Opposite Party for the use of telephone facility. Initially he was allotted Telephone No. 363171 at Poddar Road. In January, 1990 the Complainant shifted to a new residence at Bhosale Marg. A new Telephone No. 242715 was allotted to him. According to the Complainant though he had STD facility for his telephone he used to receive average telephone bill ranging from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- for every billing cycle. It appears that earlier the new Telephone No. 242715 was in the name of one Shri A.S. Ajgaonkar and the bills were sent to his address and on being informed by him on telephone, the Complainant used to make the payment of the telephone bills. On 1-2-1991 the Complainant received a bill, which was in his own name for an amount of Rs. 34,395.10. That bill also showed Rs. 2,554/- as rental charges from 9th January, 1990 till 30th April, 1991. It also showed an amount of Rs, 1,000/- by way of extension charges. In the opinion of the Complainant the said bill was excessive. He and his wife are practicing lawyers and practically during the whole day nobody is in the house to use the facility of telephone. Therefore, he contended that the recording of 32560 as local calls in respect of the said telephone for the said billing period was a clear indication that the telephone had been tampered with. In that bill charges for two trunk calls one for Rs. 220/- and another for Rs. 112/- were also included which according to the Complainant he had never made. On receipt of the disputed telephone bill, the Complainant approached the Accounts Officer of the Department vide his letter dated 16th February, 1991 bringing to the notice of the said officer the infirmities in the said bill and asked for correction of the same. In reply the Complainant was informed by communication dated 30th March, 1991 that the said bill had been provisionally split up for payment of Rs. 3,852/- and the balance amount was kept in abeyance till the investigation was completed. In order to save excessive billing the Complainant got disconnected his STD facility with effect from 10th April, 1991. Before the representation of the Complainant could be decided by the Department, the Complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission claiming Rs. 1.00 lakhs as compensation for deficiency in the rendering of service by the Department and resultant loss. During the pendency of the complaint the Opposite Party intimated to the Complainant that the disputed bill dated 1-2-1991 was vitiated by a clerical mistake committed while preparing the bill. An affidavit was also filed on behalf of the Accounts Officer explaining that the bill was for Rs. 4,202/- in respect of which Rs. 3,559/- had already been paid by the Complainant on 24-9-1991. The Complainant unnecessarily claimed the compensation by filing the complaint without awaiting the completion of the investigation.

(2.) The State Commission found that the Department was negligent in rendering the services inasmuch as :

(3.) The State Commission therefore awarded compensation to the Complainant because he was put to considerable inconvenience due to the negligence on the part of the Department and all the above facts caused sufferance to the complainant. It ordered that the Opposite Party i.e. the Department should pay to the Complainant Rs. 25,000/- as exemplary compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the complaint. Sixty days' time was given to the Department to pay the above amount from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amount so ordered was to carry interest at the rate of 18% till it is realised.