TRICHY TELECOM DISTRICT Vs. T KALAIYARASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he is not challenging the verdict of the Lower Forum on the question of deficiency but would only submit that the compensation granted is very high. The Lower Forum while accepting the complaint has directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The direction to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- appears to be on the high side especially in this case when the complainant has chosen to suppress the fact that the reconnection has been effected after filing the complaint. Further, admittedly the complainant has been residing permanently at Trichy. She has not chosen to prove how and what basis she has made such a huge claim. Moreover, from the records we find that the complainant's brother has been residing in that house where the telephone is installed.

(2.) According to the opposite party, the complainant's brother has been using the said telephone. They would say that the complainant's brother was due in a sum of Rs.1,34,574/- in respect of the connection standing in his name with indicator No.42305. When action was taken to realize the same by filing a suit, the present service has been obtained in the name of the complainant with a view to have an advantage over the opposite parties. The fact that the complainant's brother had a telephone in his name with indicator No.42305 and in respect of which he is liable to pay more than a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-, is not controverted. Further, on the complainant's own showing it is clear that she is employed as a Dentist in 'sea Hoarse' Hospital in Trichy. It is also not in dispute that the complainant's brother Kannan is now residing in the house in which the telephone which is standing in the name of the complainant is installed. Therefore, taking into consideration the above peculiar facts, we are of the view that the grant of compensation of Rs.10,000/- is on the high side. Of course, the disconnection of service by the opposite parties though cannot be justified as proper, merely on that ground we cannot call upon the Department to pay a huge amount by way of compensation. Therefore, in such circumstances, we hold that a sum of Rs.2,500/- will be an adequate compensation to be said and accordingly hold that the complainant would be entitled to the sum of Rs.2,500/- alone as compensation for deficiency in service.

(3.) In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The order passed by the Lower Forum is modified. There will be a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as compensation along with a cost of Rs.500/-. The parties shall bear their own costs here and before the Lower Forum. Time for compliance : Two months. Appeal partly allowed.