CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
(State Commission)
Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Port Blair.
APPEAL CASE NO. 22 OF 1999
Order No.7
27.10.1999
Present 1. Justice D.K.Basu(Retd.)
President,State Commission.
2. Smti. Renu Mahajan,
Member, State Commission.
Chief General Manager,
Andaman & Nicobar Telecom Circle, Port Blair
and Others
Appellants
Vs
Bimal Chakrabortv
Respondent
Ms. Shilpi Chatopadhyaya, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. N.A. Khan, Advocate for Respondent
This appeal has arisen out of the order dated 12th May, 1999 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Andaman District at Port Blair. The learned forum has allowed the appeal in part and directed the appellant to pay total compensation of Rs, 700/- inclusive of litigation expense from the Appellant No. 1,2 & 3 were made jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of Rs.700/- to the respondent All the three appellants, who are the functionaries of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Telecom Circle were directed to pay all the awarded compensation of Rs. 700/- to the complainant/Respondent within 60 days from date. By Lapse of time the awarded amount was paid to the complainant/respondent and this commission has recorded the factum of such payment on 10.9.99 while the application for stay of operation of the order was being considered.
Though the award towards compensation is very meagre but the award was given under three counts namely, Rs.500/- for the mental agony suffered by the Complainant/ respondent due to his helplessness in communicating his condolence to the bereaved family members of his elder sister-in-law, Rs. 100/- towards the cost of litigation and Rs.100/- towards maximum rental value for the purpose of 100 % rebate.
This second part and the third part of the compensation have not been seriously pressed by the learned advocate appearing for the appellants, and I think this fair approach of the learned advocate for the appellant is commendable. But the learned advocate for the appellant has challenged the awarded, compensation of Rs. 500/- for the mental shock and agony suffered by the complainant/respondent According to the appellant, the factum of death of the elder sister-in-law of the complainant petitioner was not substantially and effectively proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In such view of the matter, let us examine the grievance of the complainant/respondent from its pleading.
In paragraphs 3 (v,vi,vii) grievance of the complainant/respondent was disclosed by stating, inter alia,
(v) “That the said fault in the line has not been repaired by the Telephone authorities on 10.10.98 and the complainant since 9.10.98 till 13.10.98 kept on complaining in respect of his dead telephone and to restore the service but neither the Telephone Exchange has acknowledged fresh complaint from the complainant nor they have restored the service.
(vi) That on 13.10.98, the complainant has submitted a written complaint before the 0pp. party No.3 and requested him to repair the fault in the Telephone service of your complainant within 24 hours, which has been received by Opp.party No.3 on the same date but no action has been taken by him till 16.10.98 noon.
(vii) That on 11.10.98, complainant’s elder sister in law who had taken care of the complainant like his mother during his childhood expired at Patna and that information his elder brother could not communicate to the complainant by phone as the said phone was dead and your complainant could receive that information only 4.10.98 through his friend and the complainant could not able to attend the funeral ceremony of his sister in law and thereby sustained mental depression.”
Specifically, the averment was vague and suffers from doctrine of casual approach. Complainant/respondent did receive information on 14th October, 1998 through his friend and hence petitioner could not attend the funeral ceremony of his sister-in-law and thereby complainant was mentally depressed and shocked.
In the examination in cheap, complainant/respondent has tried to improve his grievance by supplementing, inter alia,
“My sister-in-law died on 11.10.98. On 14.10.98 I got the sad message from my elder brother from Patna over phone of some other person being No 30425 of Mr. Manoranjan Bhakta. As such I could not attend her funeral function. From 8.10.98 to 16.10.98 the telephone remained dead. At 3 PM on 16.10.98, the telephone connection was restored”.
Admittedly the telephone of the complainant/respondent bearing No.34123, at his residence, was out of order during 10th October, 1998 to 16th October, 1998 but the complainant/respondent failed to prove the factum of death of elder sister in law who died on 11th October, 1998, as stated. Unfortunately, complainant/ respondent neither examined any other witness excepting himself nor could produce any letter or documents relating to, touching and consequential to the death of a relatives of the complainant/respondent Single testimony produced by the complainant/respondent was not corroborated by any other evidence and this is the factum of death of the sister-in-law was not sufficiently proved.
Hence, we are reluctant to allow the appeal in as much as sufficient proof was not adduced before the learned District Forum and accordingly the impugned order so far determining the compensation of Rs.500/- cannot be sustained.
So far cost of litigation for Rs. 100/- and the adjustment against rebate to the extent of Rs. 100/- are concerned, we are not inclined to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
As the complainant/respondent had received the awarded compensation of Rs.500/-, this amount shall be recovered from the complainant/respondent through ten subsequent bills.
Considering the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to cost.
On the prayer of the advocate appearing for the complainant/respondent operation of the order shall be stayed for 4 months,
