Rumnita Mittal, Member:
1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order of District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi dated 30.10.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 3157/2001 entitled Shri Govind Ram Mittal v. MTNL.
2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had approached the learned District Forum with a Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as âthe Act) with the grievance that the appellant is subscriber of two telephone Nos. 7276877 and 7270984 installed at his premises. The telephone No. 7276877 went out of order on 10.7.2000, and despite repeated complaints and personal visits, the defect in the said telephone was not rectified and the telephone in question continued to remain non-operational till 10.10.2000. Furthermore, despite the fact that the said telephone remained out of order from 16.7.2000 to 15.9.2000, respondent raised a bill inclusive of the rental charges and service charges for the said period.
3. The other telephone bearing No. 7270984, also went out of order on 16.8.2000 and it was only after several oral and written complaints that the services in respect of the said telephone were restored on 2/3.9.2000. However, the same again became non-functional after two weeks. Therefore, the appellant got a legal notice served on the respondent, seeking rental rebate for the period the telephones in question remained non-functional. But since, there was no response from the respondents, the appellant was constrained to file a complaint before the District Forum praying for refund of the bill amount for the period 16.7.2000 to 15.9.2000 paid in respect of telephone No. 776877 as well as bill dated 9.9.2000 raised in respect of telephone No. 270984. The complainant also prayed for compensation of Rs. 15,000/- together with cost of litigation.
4. The respondent/M.T.N.L. in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum admitted that the telephone No. 7276877 remained out of order for the period from 13.7.2000 to 30.9.2000. It was however stated that rental rebate had been granted to the appellant for the said period and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. It was further stated by the respondent in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum that insofar as the telephone No. 7270984 was concerned, the same was in working order throughout as reflected in the FNMR placed on record before the District Forum. Therefore, the complaint filed by the appellant being devoid of merit was liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. The learned District Forum on the basis of record held that in view of the fact that the telephone No. 7276877 remained out of order for two and half months, the appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment undergone by him inclusive of cost of litigation. As regards telephone No. 7276877 it was held that there was no evidence on record to show that the said telephone remained out of order as alleged and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in respect of the said telephone.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission.
7. We have carefully perused the documents/material on record as well as written submission filed on behalf of the respondent. We have also heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties at length. The appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the learned District Forum has erroneously held on the basis of FNMR, that the telephone No. 7276877 was functional during the period 16/17.8.2000 to 2/3.9.2000 and thereafter. Furthermore, it was also contended that the amount of compensation awarded was highly inadequate in the circumstances of the case. Insofar as the first contention of the appellant is concerned, the respondent-MTNL along with its written submissions has filed a copy of the fault history sheet in respect of telephone No. 7270984. The same reveals that a complaint was lodged by the appellant in respect of his telephone No. 7270984 on 31.8.2000 and that the same was rectified only on 2.9.2000. However, the said telephone again went out of order on 9.9.2000 and was restored on 11.9.2000. Again thereafter a complaint was lodged the very next day which was attended on 12.9.2000 itself. As such, though as per the averments of the appellant the telephone in question remained out of order till 2/3.9.2000 continuously, the fault history sheet mentioned above reflects that the same was out of order intermittently during the said period. Therefore, the finding of the District Forum that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in respect of telephone No. 7270984 was erroneous and as such is set aside.
8. As regards the grievance of the appellant regarding the quantum of compensation, the same appears to be justified in the circumstances of the case. As per the own admission on the part of the respondent telephone No. 7276877 remained out of order for about two and half months whereas the other telephone No. 7270984 also remained non-functional intermittently during the period alleged. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded to the appellant as compensation inclusive of cost of litigation is definitely on the lower side.
9. Accordingly the present appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum, vide impugned order is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- (inclusive of the cost of litigation). The respondent is, therefore, directed to comply with the directions contained in the impugned order of the District Forum as modified by this Commission within 45 days of the receipt of this order failing which the appellant will be entitled to file an application under Sections 25/27 of the Act for the implementation of this order, as the appellant may be advised.
Appeal allowed.