MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. S N NARANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed on behalf of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. against the order dated 2.6.1998 passed by District Forum (South ). Vide impugned order, the District Forum directed the appellant to restore the telephone of the respondent within two months and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,000 for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000 as litigation cost. This amount was directed to be paid within two months otherwise it will carry interest @ 18% from the date of order till the date of payment. The District Forum also ordered that if the telephone is not restored within two months of the receipt of the order, respondent shall be liable to pay Rs.100 per day as compensation if the telephone is not restored within the time scheduled.

(2.) The facts of the case which gave rise to this appeal are that the respondent was a consumer of telephone No.632457 (changed to 6812457) installed at C-121, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-I and the same was placed under safe custody of the appellant in July, 1989. The respondent requested for restoration of the telephone on 20.11.1993 but in spite of several visits and representations, the telephone was not restored. The respondent also appeared before the Telephone Adalat on 10.2.1993 but the telephone was not restored. The respondent however wrote reply to the appellant on 21.6.1995 that Tekhand 681 Exchange was frozen due to capacity constraint and that additional capacity was likely to be available in this exchange by August, 1995 and the telephone would be restored after August, 1995. However, the telephone was not restored even after August, 1995 and the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the respondent.

(3.) It was argued before the District Forum on behalf of the appellant that the telephone of the respondent (complainant) was not lying in safe custody and he had not produced any receipt for the same. It was however argued that priority cannot be given to the respondent over new connections as he had not completed the formalities. However, no affidavit was filed by the appellant in support of the above contention. On the other hand affidavit in support of this contention was filed by the respondent before the District Forum. Finding the respondent liable for deficiency in service, the impugned order was passed by the District Forum.