Delhi

StateCommission

A/228/2015

HARI RAM TIWARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MTNL & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Dec 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :12.12.2018

Date of Decision : 18.12.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO.228/2015

In the matter of:

 

                                                              

Shri Hari Ram Tiwari,

RZ-57A Palam Vihar,

Dwarka, Sector-6,

New Delhi-110075.                                                       …..Appellant

•  

 

1. Executive Director MTNL,

Khursheed Lal Bhawan,

Janpath Marg,

New Delhi-110001.

 

2. Area Manager MTNL,

Dwarka Area Telephone Exchange,

Sector-6, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075.                                                  ….Respondent

                                                                                   

•  

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. Complainant has come forward in the present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Forum in CC No.740/13. The facts are in a narrow compass. The complainant had MTNL telephone in his house, with internet facility. He made complaint but internet was not rectified.
2. OP/respondent appeared in the District Forum and undertook to resolve issue on 12.11.14 for payment of Rs.2,000/- but later on failed to comply with the same.
3. After considering the complainant evidence, the District Forum found that OP accepted its deficiency before District Forum on 12.11.14 by compensating the complainant with sum of Rs.2,000/- Later on OP disappear to contest the case which shows that OP deliberately compel the complainant into litigation. Thus the OP was directed to rectify the internet within 30 days and pay Rs.3,500/- as litigation and harassment  charges. That is all.
4. During arguments in appeal the officer of respondent submitted that it has already comply with the  order of District Forum by paying Rs.5,500/- by way of cheque dated 05.05.15. Copy of the cheque has been placed on record. It appears that the respondent mislead the orders of District Forum by clubbing directions to pay Rs.3,500/- as litigation and harassment charges and Rs.2,000/- undertaken by it to resolve the issue. That sum was not separately given by the District Forum.
5. Again both the parties stated at the time of arguments in appeal that the appellant has already surrendered the telephone connection including internet service. Otherwise also it is not the case of the appellant that his internet was not rectified within time allowed by the District Forum.
6. Grievance of the appellant is that sum of Rs.3,500/- awarded by the District Forum is quite meagre. I am not convinced that a litigant can charge any amount by him as compensation for harassment. The appellant had not adduced any evidence in the District Forum as to how much loss he suffers due to non rectification of internet connection. The respondent is a government authority and public fund can not be allowed to be distributed like a toppy. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
7. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                                                                                              (O.P. GUPTA)                                                                                                                                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

•