MURLI MANOHAR Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, the complainant-appellant had applied for a new telephone connection while paying Rs.3,000/- vide receipt dated 17.3.1997 and an Advice Note was also issued by the opposite party, the respondent in this appeal, vide No.33489 dated 12.3.1998. He was forced to file the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum) for providing the telephone facility to him. District Forum vide its order dated 11.11.1998 after going through the record of the case ordered the opposite party to provide telephone to the complainant within two months of the receipt of the order and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation. Against this order of the District Forum, an appeal has been preferred by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. As according to the appellant a sum of Rs.1,000/- awarded as compensation is at a very lower side. He has also relied upon order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 1993 (1) CPR page 117. We find force in the contention of the appellant that the compensation awarded in the circumstances of the case is quite adequate. It is admitted that the complainant had applied for telephone connection on 17.3.1997 and Advice Note was issued by the opposite party on 12.3.1998 and the complainant was forced to file a complaint on 2.7.1998 to enforce his right to get a telephone connection under the relevant Act and the Rules. District Forum has also concluded after going through the record of the case that non-provision of the telephone to the complainant amounted to deficiency in rendering service. But for not providing the telephone for about ten months only paltry sum of Rs.1,000/- was awarded as compensation. We have also gone through the authority cited by the appellant, which lends some support to his case.

(2.) It is admitted before us that the respondent has not filed any appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 11.11.1998, which means the factual position taken into consideration by the District Forum remains unrebutted.

(3.) Taking into consideration all the relevant facts of the case, we feel that the ends of justice shall be met if the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. Consequently, we allow this appeal and modify the order of the District Forum to the extent stated above. The appeal is resultantly allowed with costs, which are quantified as a Rs.2,000/-. Appeal allowed with costs.