(1.) Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 28.7.1999 passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs.23,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment the respondent suffered for disconnection of his mobile phone on 27.4.1998 appellant has preferred this appeal. Admittedly the payment of the bill for the month of March, 1998 was payable by 23.4.1998 but was paid on 24.4.1998. Possibility of having failed to post the payment by 27.4.1998 by the appellant in their record cannot be ruled out.
(2.) Merely because the consumer happened to a Chairman of school does not mean that he is entitled to loss of business by way of mobile telephone. The object of the Consumer Protection Act is only to provide compensation on account of deficiency in service and not by way of loss of business. If consumers are compensated on account of loss of business then there will be no end and providers of service will go bankrupt. Industrialist and businessmen will claim crores of rupees from the provider of service for disconnection of telephone for a week or so.
(3.) We deem that for not keeping their record by not showing the payment received from the respondent on 24.4.1998 appellant is guilty of deficiency in service. We partly allow the appeal by modifying the amount of compensation from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,000/- as the mental agony and harassment one suffers from the disconnection of a mobile phone is immense as mobile phone is a great source of emergency messages and calls and such a facility is like a mobile home. This facility comes very handy where there is non-availability of PCO or STD facility.