R C SRIVASTAVA Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 7.3.2002 passed by District Forum (South) in Complaint Case No.2886/1996- entitled Shri R. C. Srivastava V/s. General Manager, MTNL, Nehru Place.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant who was a subscriber of telephone provided by the respondent-MTNL requested for shifting of the telephone from his residence C-39-B, Gangotri Apartments, Alaknanda to his new residence 23, Suraj Apartments, Pul Pahaladpur, Suraj Kund Road. The request was made on 4.6.1996 but the telephone was not shifted to the new address in spite of several requests by the appellant hence the appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum. After filing of the complaint, the telephone was shifted on 15.2.1997. The appellant, however, claimed compensation for mental agony and harassment from the respondent on account of delay in shifting the telephone. The respondent stated before the District Forum that the telephone could not be shifted for genuine reasons beyond the control of the respondent and there was no deficiency in service on its part. After hearing the parties, the learned District Forum found the respondent guilty of causing delay in shifting the telephone and thus guilty of deficiency in service to the complainant who is a consumer. Therefore, the District Forum directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the appellant for mental agony including cost of litigation. Not satisfied by the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum, the present appeal has been filed on the ground that no order has been passed by the learned District Forum regarding the refund of advance payment of rent for the period September, 1996 to November, 1996 during which the telephone was not shifted and was not functioning at the residence of the appellant. The appellant has also claimed compensation for non-provision of telephone between September, 1996 to November, 1996.

(3.) The respondent in its reply before this Commission has only stated that since the telephone has been shifted and the learned District Forum has already awarded compensation in favour of the appellant, the matter stands concluded and hence the appeal should be dismissed.