Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, seeking refund of Rs.1,000/- apart from damages of Rs.50,000/- on the ground of deficiency in service. Notices were duly served on both O.P.s who appeared, filed version and affidavit and contested the complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. Undisputed facts, can be briefly summarized as under:-<br /> <br /> O.P.1 and 2 are Telephone Service providers. It is the case of complainant that on 19-9-03 he has deposited an amount of Rs.1,000/-, seeking new telephone connection to his office and preferred phone number 5550048. O.P. agreed to install telephone within a period of 3 days, but he has failed to do so. The complainant sent protest letter to O.P.1 and 2 on 21/22-10-03. Instead of providing the preferred telephone number O.P. offered telephone number 5553043. Even then, they failed to provide connection. It is the case of complainant that he has written repeated letters on 31-10-03, 5-11-03, 21-12-04 and 13-3-04. Lastly, the complainant has received a cheque drawn on Bank of India, Mysore dated 16-12-03. But, this cheque was actually receivedby the complainant on 14-8-04 that is beyond the date of it’s validity. The complainant has spent huge amount in visiting the office of O.P. nearly 10 time and suffered mental agony, hence he has sought for compensation of Rs.50,000/-. <br /> <br /> 3. We do not intended to reproduce the version and affidavit filed by the O.P. The learned counsel for the O.P. Sri.P.T.P. submitted during the course of argument that there was some fault on the part of the O.P.s, because the cheque was sent to it’s agent at Mysore named “In Toto Communication”, Mysore. It is also submitted that the number preferred by the complainant was already allotted to one Ananda Murthy, hence, the same could not be given to the complainant. The agent of the O.P. failed to deliver the cheque intime. The learned counsel for the O.P. offered to refund Rs.1,000/- with reasonable interest and cost to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 4. But, the complainant who was present in person submitted that he is not willing to accept reasonable cost and insisted that he is entitled for damages of Rs.50,000/- as claimed in the complainant. Heard the learned counsels for both sides.<br /> <br /> 5. Short points for our consideration are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether complainant is entitled for the damages of Rs.50,000/- on the ground of mental agony as claimed in the complaint?<br /> 2. Whether complainant is entitled for cost, if so to what amount?<br /> 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. Point no.1: Complainant is entitled for damages of Rs.1,000/- only.<br /> 2. He is entitled for cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Points no. 1 and 2:- Strictly speaking, it is not a case of deficiency in service. Complainant is a prospective Consumer, who submitted an application seeking telephone connection at the given address. It was the discretion of the O.P. either to provide or refuse such service. If, telephone service was provided and thereafter, if it was disconnected illegally, there was justification for the claim of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. In this case, complainant preferred telephone number 5550048 which was already allotted some other person named Ananda Murthy. O.P. offered alternative phone no.5553043. The same was not materialized. It is not disputed that the complainant cheque dated 19-9-03 was encashed on 22-9-03. There is also no dispute that O.P. issued the refund cheque of Rs.1,000/- on 16-12-03. The only fault ion the part of the O.P. was that, this cheque was sent for deliver to it’s agent at Mysore and not directly to the complainant. It is also important to note that even after sending this cheque, complainant had written letters dated 31-10-03, 5-11-03, 21-12-04, and 13-3-04, but there was no proper response from the O.P. In the normal course, the complainant would have been entitled for refund of Rs.1,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 19-9-03 upto 19-4-05. The period comes to 2 years 7 months 7 days and the amount of interest comes to Rs.468.50. But there was no proper response and reply by the O.P. till this complaint was filed in the month of February 2006. Having regard to such negligent act, we have to award reasonable damages.<br /> <br /> 9. Damages are awarded in Indian courts on pragmatic and reasonable basis. The complainant is claiming damages of Rs.50,000/- for not providing telephone connection. Such claim is imaginary and not acceptable. In such cases, the damages can not exceed the original amount paid by the complainant. Hence, we come to conclusion that it is a fit case to award damages of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> 10. Regarding the cost, the complainant has filed this complaint in the month of February and disposed within a period of 2 months from the date of appearance, hence, cost of Rs.500/- would be sufficient to need ends of justice. Hence, we proceed to following order:- <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> 2. O.P.s are directed to refund Rs.1,000/- along with damages of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant by D.D. It shall be sent to the address of the complainant, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order along with cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> 3. If O.P.s fail to send the above amount as per the above direction, complainant is entitled to receive future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.2,000/- from such date, till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br />