Delhi

StateCommission

A/09/696

MTNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANANDV. KHATRI - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                Date of Arguments: 04.11.16

Date of Decision:    08.11.16

 

First Appeal 696/09

In the matter of:

                                                   

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

     Khurshid Lal Bhawan,

     Janpath, New Delhi                                                                      ........Appellant

 

 

 

                                                          Vs.

Anand V.Khatri

6015/1, D6B,

Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi-70                                                                                ........Respondent

 

                                                                                     

 

         O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.  Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes

 

2.  To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The appellant was OP before District Forum in complaint case No. 876/2000. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 28.07.09 directing it to keep the internet of the complainant in working condition and at an appropriate speed, awarding Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency, pay Rs. 5000/- towards cost of litigation. The present appeal has been preferred.

2.        The respondent/complainant was using Phone No.26136870 and Tri Band net facility on said phone. His internet was not working properly as it was not having speed claimed by appellant.  It was disconnected in between by showing ‘Internet explorer encounter with some problem’.  Sometime person from local exchange visited the respondent’s premises and tried to make the same functional but after two or three days again the same started creating problem.  On 24.05.2009 respondent called at customer care of the complainant and registered complaint No. 41601031 but to no use. The respondent sought relief of adjustment of previous bill and compensation.

3.        None appeared for the appellant in District Forum and it was proceeded ex-parte.  The respondent filed his affidavit for ex-parte evidence.

4.        After going through the material on record district forum observed that from unrebutted evidence it stood proved that internet of the respondent was not working properly.

5.        In appeal the grievance of the appellant is that in view of section 7(B) of Indian Telegraph Act, remedy is arbitration and not under consumer protection Act.

6.        During arguments the counsel for respondent cited several decisions of different state commissions, High Court of Delhi in J K Mittal vs. Union of India holding that MTNL is not Telegraph Authority but is only service provider,  consequently consumer courts have jurisdiction.  Faced with this situation the counsel for the appellant urged that short dispute is regarding quantum of compensation only and the same may be decided on merits.

7.        I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.  The counsel for the appellant pointed out that as per observation made by National Commission in order dated 22.08.14 in revision petition No. 3515/13 titled as MTNL vs. Anand V.Khatri against order dated 12.07.13 passed by this Commission vide which appeal was dismissed in default, the respondent received Rs. 15,000/- as litigation charges vide order dated 13.12.13.

8.        On the facts and circumstances of the case I feel that sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation) is on the higher side.  Awarding Rs. 20,000/- in all would meet ends of justice.  Accordingly the order is modified to the effect that appellant will pay Rs. 5,000/- more to the respondent, in addition to Rs. 15,000/- already paid.

            Appeal is disposed off accordingly.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

            Copy of order be sent to district forum for information.

 

(O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)