Delhi

North East

CC/318/2014

Ved Prakash Arya - Complainant(s)

Versus

MTNL - Opp.Party(s)

-

22 Nov 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 318/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ved Prakash R/o 556, Gali No. 11 Vijay Park, Maujpur Delhi-110053.	Complainant
	Versus
	Manager Telephonic Nigam Ltd (MTNL) Zonal Office: C-10 Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053. Through its Zonal Manager	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION :

20.06.2014 22.11.2019 22.11.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is regarding malfunctioning and disruption of service of his MTNL Telephone landline Connection bearing no. 22913154 installed at complainant’s premises of which connection OP is the service provider. The said connection was giving problem since March 2013 when complainant lodged several telephonic complaints with OP from March 2013 to October 2013 and lastly since 07.04.2014 the said connection is totally dead and has failed to operate in all respects. The complainant lodged written complaints dated 06.05.2014 and 19.06.2014 with OP but OP never sent anybody to remove the fault in the said connection or its line. The internet services were also totally blocked due to fault in the connection which adversely effected studies of children of the complainant and discomfort to his entire family. Therefore feeling aggrieved due to inaction on the part of OP in having failed to remove the fault in the connection despite several visits and reminder, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against OP praying for issuance of directions against it to remove the defects/ fault in the telephone landline bearing no. 22913154 alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment and financial loss and cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached complaint dated 06.05.2014 and 19.06.2014 to OP alongwith bills generated for the period January 2014 to June 2014.

2. Notice was issued to the OP on 26.08.2014. OP entered appearance and filed written statement taking preliminary objection of non maintainability of complaint in view of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment of M.Krishnan Case as per which all such disputes pertaining to telephone, apparatus, line, bills etc are to be tried via arbitration under Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act. OP submitted that it had granted rebate of fault history period from March 2013 to October 2014 to the tune of Rs. 1561.80/- to the complainant which shall be refunded/adjusted in subsequent bills raised by OP. OP, while denying complete breakdown of service, admitted to the complainant having made several complaints but stated that per contra to allegation of the complainant of complaints not been attended to, all such complaints were duly responded to by OP and connection was rectified immediately and restored promptly. OP admitted that connection was disturb between the period August 2013 to September 2013 due to underground cable fault due to digging by DMRC and rent rebate has been giving to the complainant for all such closed / non working periods amounting to Rs. 1561.80/-. Lastly OP submitted that the complainant last complaint was made on 07.10.2013 and no complaint was made by him till 06.05.2014 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint for no cause of action. Thereafter, on Forum intervention, OP rectified the connection of the complainant in November – December 2014 but the same was not to the satisfaction of the complainant in terms of problem of unclear voice and audio issues. Therefore, vide order dated 27.03.2015 to replace the instrument passed b y this Forum, the same was complied with by OP as recorded in proceedings held on 07.04.2015 and internal letter dated 31.03.2015 to DE for compliance of this Forum’s order was placed on record by OP. However, the audio problem due to cable was still reported by the complainant before this Forum in August 2015 which was addressed by OP between October – November 2015. In hearing held on 20.11.2015, complainant submitted to being satisfied with services of OP but pressed for compensation for inconvenience and loss suffered by him.
3. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments in reassertion of their respective grievance / defence were filed by both parties. In the written arguments filed by OP, OP submitted that the rebate has already being adjusted.

Complainant filed additional affidavit vide which he prayed for compensation on grounds that OP never redressed his problem of dysfunctional phone and only removed the defects therein on the directions of this Forum. The services were again disrupted for about a week in early January 2016 and only after a written complaint was giving to OP by the complainant, the same were rectified and therefore on such grounds complainant prayed for suitable compensation. Both parties made a joint statement before this Forum in proceedings held on 04.12.2018 that rebate of 1561.80/- was giving by OP to the complainant for faulty period of March 2013 to October 2014. Since complainant was seeking relief in terms of compensation, this Forum vide directions issued in hearing held on 08.02.2019 directed OP to place on record the exact time period when the said rent rebate was giving by OP to the complainant. OP filed internal communication dated 07.12.2018 from its Chief Account Officer to AGM (Legal) pertaining to complainant’s case wherein the said rent rebate was given between October 2014 – December 2014.

4. Oral arguments were addressed by both parties on the issue of compensation since the part relief of rectification of landline and rent rebate was already resolved during the pendency of proceedings.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by both sides and may now advert to the core question viz as to whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation and if any, quantum thereof.

Compensation is for vindicating the strength of law and acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil and aims at improving work culture and changing the outlook of officer/public servant and discourages arrogation of power in arbitrary manner. Hon'ble National Commission in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Yogesh Chandragupta in RP No. 128/2000 decided on 06.12.2004 held that where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the commission / Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indochem Electronic Vs Addl. Collector of Customs (2006) 3 SCC 721 held that deficiency in service is must to award compensation and such deficiency must manifest itself for entitling complainant to compensation.

 

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Landmark judgment of Charan Singh Vs Healing Touch AIR 2000 SC 3138 observed that while quantifying damages, consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual but also aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of service provider. Indeed no hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application / calculation of damages but relevant factors be taken into a count for assessing compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles or moderation. It is for the consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.

 

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GDA Vs Balbir Singh AIR 2004 SC 2141 held inter alia that consumer Forums could grant damage/ compensation for mental agony/harassment based on finding of loss or injury where it finds misfeasance in public office.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, Consumers are provided with an alternative, officious and speedy remedy for redressal of their disputes in simple and inexpensive manner. Therefore, keeping in view the preamble and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, the interest and protection of consumer is paramount and considering that a layman is not familiar with legal proceedings and nuances of drafting, leniency and guidance is shown towards complainants unaided by counsels. The CPA being a beneficial legislation for the rescue of Consumers, the Forums are watch guards to protect their interests.

In the present case it is admitted that landline connection of the complainant was faulty since March 2013 till October 2014 in which period complainant made several complaints to OP. Dispute arose when the landline became totally dead in April 2014 and was not rectified by OP despite written complaints by the complainant in May-June 2014 compelling him to file the present complaint. It was only during the pendency of the complaint and on directions issued by this Forum that OP rectified the connection services in November 2014 and replace the defective instrument with Clip phone as well as cable and also granted rent rebate ofRs. 1561.80/- to the complainant for faulty periods. Therefore, it is apparent that the telephone connection was dysfunctional for more than one and half years from March 2013 till November 2014 when the phone was first repaired by OP at the intervention and on directions of this Forum. Telephone Connection is not a luxury but necessity. When its user is prevented or obstructed on account of fault, a complaint regarding this requires to be properly responded and failure to do so by service provider is deficiency of service. Hon'ble National Commission in the recent judgment of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs Doctor Balwant Singh I (2019) CPJ 272 (NC) in RP No. 1897/2015 decided on 11.12.2018 held in a similar case of dysfunctional landline telephone and outgoing barred that the complainant being a senior citizen aged 76 years, deprived of using the telephone connection had since undergone mental agony, stress, pain, tension and hardship was entitled to compensation.   

6. After due appreciation of the facts and documentary evidence placed on record and pleadings filed before us we have no hesitation in concluding that there has been a gross negligence and deficiency of service writ large on the part of OP in so far as rectification of defects in landline is concerned and rent rebate given since both acts were done by OP after the complainant file the present complaint and on directions of this Forum.
7. We therefore deem fit to allow the prayer of the complainant for compensation as justifiable and direct the OP to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for mental harassment, agony and inconvenience caused to him and his family for the long spell of disrupted telephone services since March 2013.  
8. Let the order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.   File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on 22.11.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member