MNTL Vs. SALEKH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Insurance (Telecom) Company.

(2.) Very briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had two telephone connections. In respect of one phone, the complainant received bill for the period 16.10.1988 to 15.12.1988. The correctness of the bill was disputed. On account of non-payment of the total amount, the telephone was disconnected. The second telephone was also disconnected on 15.2.1990 for non-payment of the 1st telephone. Even though there was nothing outstanding against the second telephone. The matter was taken up to the Civil Court, who directed the appellant to appoint an arbitrator under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Certain reliefs were given by the Arbitrator. In these circumstances, the complainant requested the appellant to restore the telephone but when the appellant failed to restore the connection, a complaint was filed before the State Commission. Finally the telephones were restored only on 17.4.1994, one week before the filing of the complaint. The complaint was resisted by the appellant before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 and cost of Rs. 2,500. Aggrieved by this order this appeal his been filed by the appellant/opposite party.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The basic facts are not disputed. There is no disputing the fact that bill was raised in respect of one telephone for the period 16.10.1988 to 15.12.1988. The second telephone was also disconnected on 15.2.1990 for non-payment of the bill relating to the other telephone. There was also no dispute that the Arbitrator was appointed by the Managing Director of the appellant who gave his award on 23.3.1992 granting certain reliefs. Despite the complainant having paid the amount in terms of the award of the Arbitrator, yet the telephones were not restored despite representations made by the complainant dated 22.12.1992 and 15.2.1993, thus, depriving the complainant of the facility of telephone without any reason. Finally the telephone was restored only one week before the filing of the complaint.