Rumnita Mittal, Member:
1. The present appeal is directed against the order of District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi dated 18.6.1997 passed in Complaint Case No. 1256/95 entitled M/s. Travel Circuit and Another v. MTNL.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are, that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as âthe Act) averring therein that the complainant is partner of M/s. Travel Circuit an IATA Accredited Agency and Director of M/s. Tumberline Trekking Camps Pvt. Ltd. Telephone Nos. 6432903 and 6431746 are installed at the commercial premises of the complainant at 207, Allied House, Local Shopping Centre, Madangir, New Delhi. The aforesaid telephones remained out of order from 1.4.1995 till 24.4.1995 and were thereafter restored with changed telephone numbers. No notice whatsoever was given to the appellant by the respondent regarding the disconnection or the change of numbers and it was only on account of personal inquiries on the part of the appellant, from the telephone exchange, that it was revealed that the above said telephones of the appellant had been non-functional on account of transfer of the said phones from Nehru Place Exchange to Tughlakabad Exchange. It was the case of the appellant before the District Forum that the appellant had incurred heavy losses during the period the telephones in question remained inoperative as the appellant companies are entirely dependent for their business on the said facility. Accordingly the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for award of compensation to the extent of Rs. 40,495/- per day w.e.f. 1.4.1995 till the restoration of the telephones and also for directions to the respondent to take proper stops to ensure satisfactory functioning of the said telephones and in case of disconnection/change of phone number due notice be issued to the appellant. It was also prayed that for loss suffered on account of printing of despatch brochures carrying the earlier telephone numbers compensation @ Rs. 15 per brochure be awarded.
3. In its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, the case of the respondent-MTNL was that the telephone No. 6432903 was disconnected on 30.8.1995 on account of outstanding dues of Rs. 1,473/- for the billing cycle 16.4.1994 and as soon as the outstanding bills were paid, the said telephone was restored on the same day i.e., 2.9.1994. Furthermore, due notice was issued to the appellant regarding non-payment of bills. It was denied that the appellant had suffered any loss on account of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. It was further the case of the respondent that bill for Rs. 5,569/- for the billing cycle 16.2.1995 was outstanding against the telephone in question and as such the complaint filed by the appellant was false and frivolous and liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned District Forum on the basis of material on record vide impugned order held that the respondent MTNL had failed to rebut the averments made by the appellant in its complaint despite sufficient opportunity given. Whereas the complainant had substantiated its stand that the telephones in question were non-operational during April, 1995 and the repeated complaints of the appellant in that regard remained unattended by the respondent. As such holding the respondent guilty of deficiency in service the learned District Forum directed the respondent to refund the rental for the period 1.4.1995 to 25.4.1995 in respect of both the telephones in question with the directions to send telephones bills at the correct address of the appellant and to pay Rs. 2,500/- as costs and compensation to the appellant for the harassment and inconvenience caused to him.
5. Dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded to it by the learned District Forum, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
6.We have carefully gone through the documents/material placed on record as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties. The sole contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that keeping in view the heavy losses incurred by it on account of the fact that its business was totally dependent on the telephone service provided by the respondent through telephones in question, the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum in the circumstances was highly inadequate. So far as the fact regarding the telephones in question remaining dead for the period 1.4.1995 to 25.4.1995 is concerned, there has been no rebuttal of the fact by the respondent either before the District Forum or before us. Therefore, deficiency in service on the part of the appellant stands established. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellant, the appellant has not adduced any evidence to show the actual loss incurred by it. Therefore, the claim of the appellant for loss of business evalued at Rs. 9,71,880/- appears to be highly exaggerated, especially in view of the fact that besides the two telephones in question, the appellant had two other phone numbers as is evident from the letterhead of the appellant placed on record. Furthermore, in view of the recent decision of the Honble National Commission in case Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank v. H.B. Impex, reported as I (2004) CPJ 13 (NC)=1986-2002 Consumer 5867 (NS), it has been categorically held that abnormal or unusual losses cannot be awarded. However, the fact remains that the telephone in question were being used by the appellant for business purposes and since the same remained out of order for about 24 days and also that the numbers were changed without prior intimation, the appellant must have suffered undue harassment and inconvenience during the said period. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 2,500/- granted as compensation is definitely inadequate in the circumstances of the case and as such the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- inclusive of the cost of the proceedings.
In consequence, the appeal, filed by the appellant is partly allowed to the extent that the amount of compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- inclusive of the cost of the proceedings. The order, being impugned in the present appeal stands modified to the above extent only. It is further directed that the order of the District Forum as modified be complied with within 45 days of the receipt of this order failing which the appellant would be at liberty to move an application under Sections 25/27 of the Act, as the appellant may be advised for the implementation of the order.
The present, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms.
Appeal partly allowed.