R.K. AGRAWAL, J. PRESIDENT

1.       By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and its functionaries, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint under the Act, call in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 27.04.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 494/2014.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners herein.  The Appeal had been filed against the order dated 21.04.2014, passed by the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-III, Jaipur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 1631/2012 (Old Case No. 888/2010).  By the said order, while accepting the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners and one of their Senior Accounts Managers, Opposite Party No.4 in the Complaint, to jointly and severally adjust the advance amount deposited by the Complainant in the telephone bill of the concerned month and the future bills; restore the telephone services without any unjustified delay on Complainant’s informing about the non-working of the telephone; pay to the Complainant ₹2,51,000/- as compensation towards mental agony etc. as also ₹11,000/- as litigation costs.  Additionally, on the one hand, while observing that the Complainant was free to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the Petitioners, on the other hand, the District Forum had instructed the Petitioners to recover the amount from the delinquent officials, after making payment of the same to the Complainant, and initiate departmental action against the said officials.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was having BSNL telephone connection No. 2742612 at his residence for the last many years.  The Complainant used to make advance deposits for payment of the future bills. According to the information given by the Senior Accounts Manager of BSNL that on depositing the advance amount for one year, there was a provision for free services for one year, on 12.12.2008, in addition to the previously deposited amount from time to time, a sum of ₹1348/- was deposited by the Complainant. On 25.06.2010, further advance amount of ₹10,000/- was deposited by him.  As alleged, on 23.05.2010, the Complainant found that his telephone services had been withdrawn due to non-payment.  The last bill sent to the Complainant in March, 2010 was up-to February, 2010.  As per the said bill, the outstanding amount was ₹308/- which was stated to be Zero after deduction against the advance deposit amount and the remaining advance deposit was ₹6750/- in the account of the Complainant as shown thereof. According to the Complainant, the Petitioners intentionally did not send the bills for the months of March, April and May to him, before disconnecting the connection illegally. On approaching the officials of BSNL at its Bajaj Nagar Office, a joint duplicate bill for ₹2597/- was issued to the representative of the Complainant for the months of April and May, 2010 which included the previous balance of ₹1633.54 for the month of March, 2010. After deduction of the said amount of ₹2597/- against the advance deposit of ₹6750/-, a sum of ₹4153/- was available as balance advance amount in the account of the Complainant, however, the same was not reflected in the said bill. On enquiry, it was informed to the representative of the Complainant that the said information could not be disclosed in the duplicate bill. Vide his letter, dated 24.06.2010, addressed to the Petitioners, the Complainant sought for action against their responsible and delinquent officials.  On receipt thereof, the Bajaj Nagar Office of BSNL sent the original bill copy to the Complainant. It was found by the Complainant that though advance deposit of ₹6750/- was there in his account but in the original bill the period and basis for showing the outstanding amount of ₹1633.54 was not indicated. The telephone connection was disconnected on 23.06.2010 before the last date of payment, i.e. 02.07.2010. The original bill copy mentioned only an amount of ₹2160/- in the account of the Complainant as advance deposit, however, as per Bill of February 2010, the advance deposit was ₹6750/-. According to the Complainant, the dislocation of the advance deposit from the records of BSNL was not only a very serious matter but also a criminal conspiracy, for which a case under the relevant provisions of IPC was made out. For not sending the bills, the employees of BSNL stated that change of software of computer was responsible for the same and, further, they were not concerned whether the bill sent by post was received by the consumers or not. The telephone line/connection of the Complainant was restored on showing all the documents, on receiving the duplicate bill. It is alleged by the Complainant that the Petitioners unauthorizedly and forcefully disconnected the phone of the Complainant, due to which he had to face a great mental tension and depression as he was not able to contact his doctor for his medical advice. Accordingly, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners on the afore-noted counts, the Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum claiming a total compensation of ₹19.80 lakh under different heads.

3.       Upon notice, the Petitioners contested the Complaint by filling their Written Version.  While admitting that the Complainant was their consumer having telephone connection No. 2742612; there was a provision for making advance deposits for the same, under which the Complainant had made certain deposits; the bill for the month of February, 2010 was sent to the Complainant in March, 2010; and as per the said bill, remaining advance amount of ₹6750/- was there in the account of the Complainant, it was contended on behalf of the Petitioners that they had not closed down the services of the telephone of the Complainant on 23.05.2010. On 23.06.2010, the telephone services were stopped by CDR System, under which the duplicate bills could not be prepared separately while the outstanding amount used to be adjusted in the future bills.  The new system of computer was applicable since March, 2010, in which the bills were to be paid after two months, in which the department or any employee or official had no ill-intention.  Though the Complainant had made advance deposit but due to non-entry of same in the DOT-SOFT-system CDR, the phone was disconnected by the system, for which Bajaj Nagar Office had nothing to do.  The duplicate bill did not have the details of advance deposit. The letter dated 24.06.2010, issued by the Complainant, was replied to by the Dy. Director (T.R.) of BSNL on 07.07.2010.  The bill dated 11.06.2010 was for the period from 01.04.2010 to 03.05.2010 and the outstanding amount of ₹1633.32 could not be deducted from the advance deposit due to change of system.  The amount of ₹2160/- deposited in the account of the Complainant was security amount and it had no concern with the bills or advance deposit.  The advance deposit also could not be mentioned in the bills due to change of computer system.  The telephone of the Complainant was disconnected due to technical reasons/defects and the same was cured/repaired by doing work with full responsibilities by the officials. 

4.       On analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, as noted above, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and issued the afore-noted directions to the Petitioners.

5.       Aggrieved with the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioners filed their Appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed observing that the District Forum had not made any order for initiating criminal proceedings against the Petitioners and the Complainant was only granted liberty to initiate the same.

6.       Hence, the present Revision Petition by the Petitioners.

7.       On 07.08.2015, when the Petition came up for motion hearing, after hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioners at some length, notice was directed to be issued to the Respondent/Complainant confined to the quantum of amount of compensation.

8.       Upon notice, the Respondent/Complainant is represented. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for both the parties on the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. We have also perused the written submissions filed by them.  

9.       Mr. Saurabh Shandilya, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner No.1 has vehemently submitted that neither in the complaint nor in his affidavit, the Complainant had mentioned the number of days of disconnection of the telephone; Complainant had wrongly mentioned date of disconnection of telephone as 23.05.2010 though the telephone was disconnected on 23.06.2010 at 4.44 a.m. and was restored on the same very day at 2.10 P.M.; the burden of proving the damages was upon the Complainant but he had failed to file any documents in support of his claim i.e. loss suffered by him on account of disconnection of the telephone; no medical history had been filed by the Complainant to substantiate that he was required to take any consultancy from his doctor in an emergency; the telephone connection remained disconnected only for a day due to change in billing system i.e. C.D.R. System and 4 days for dynamic lock which fact is crystal clear from the closer report of complaint no.1016965341; it was wrongly held by the fora below that due to previous case filed by the Complainant, the Petitioners had intentionally disconnected the telephone connection to take revenge; and even if, though specifically denied, there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners, the compensation awarded by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission, does not commensurate with the alleged loss suffered by the Complainant and it is on the higher side.

10.     Mr. Ajay K. Tyagi, Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant, on the other hand, while supporting the decision of the Fora below, submitted that the telephone connection was non-functional from 23.05.2010 to 30.06.2010 and no efforts whatsoever were made by the Petitioner to make it operational despite repeated requests and communications dated 24.06.2010 and 29.06.2010; the outgoing calls were stopped on 23.05.2010 for non-deposit of the bills despite the fact that there was advance deposit of ₹6,750/- in his account to be adjusted again the bill amount; Petitioners had failed to justify as to why the advance deposit balance was not reflected in the bill dated 11.06.2010 as was being done earlier; the landline connection was not working for a long time and only on moving an application u/s 13 (3-B) of the Act during the proceedings before the District Forum in the month of January 2014, it was restored.

11.     Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the case, we are of the opinion that in so far as the question whether or not there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner is concerned, bearing in mind the settled principle of law that the revisional powers of this Commission, derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, (See: Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269), it has to be answered in favour of the Complainant.  In our view, the said concurrent finding by both the Forum below is based on cogent and substantial documentary evidence, which is not shown to be irrelevant. Therefore, we are unable to hold on facts at hand that there was jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, warranting our interference.  

12.     We may now advert to the core question, viz. as to whether any interference is called for on the quantum of compensation.

13.     There is no dispute with regard to the deposits of the advance amount from time to time by the Complainant for payment of future telephone bills. Admittedly, as per bill dated 05.03.2010 received by the Complainant for the Month of February, 2010, there was an advance deposit balance of ₹6750/- in account of the Complainant after deduction of the bill amount of ₹308/- which was shown as zero. No bills were received by the Complainant for the months of March, April and May, 2010. However, later on, the Complainant received the original bill dated 11.06.2010 for the months of April and May, 2010 for a sum of ₹2,597/- including the previous balance of ₹1,633.54. In case, this amount would have been adjusted against the advance deposit  of ₹6750/- as shown in the bill of February 2010, the remaining advance balance in the account of the Complainant was ₹4,153/- and as such there was no reason to disconnect the telephone for non-payment of the bill amount by the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the landline telephone remained non-functional from 23.05.2010 when the outgoing facility was withdrawn till 23.06.2010 when it was restored by the Petitioner. Further, during the pendency of the Complaint before the District Forum, an application u/s 13 (3-B) of the Act was filed by the Complainant on 01.01.2014 stating that the phone was out of order for a long time; a complaint No.1016965341 was lodged by one Mr. Dev Sharma on 26.12.2012 on behalf of the Complainant but phone was not made operational; and the regular bills were not being sent by the Petitioner to him. A direction was sought to the Petitioners to restore the connection immediately, keep continue its services in future and to send the original bills on time. Filing of such an application by the Complainant itself proved that telephone was not functioning properly during the years from 2010, when it was disconnected, to 2014, when the application was filed. It is not the defence of the Petitioners that the said application was filed by the Complainant due to any grudge against the Petitioners. Rather, in the year 2005 also a complaint alleging faulty service on the telephone was filed by the Complainant against the Petitioners before the District Forum which was allowed directing them to pay compensation of ₹10,000/- and costs of ₹2,000/- to the Complainant. Because of the non-functioning of the telephone during all this period, the Complainant, a senior citizen aged 76 years, who was not having or was not able to use mobile phone due to radiation problem as stated in the affidavit filed on 14.12.2016, was unable to be in regular contact with his doctor for medical advice as and when required. Undoubtedly, the Complainant had undergone mental agony, stress, pain, tension and hardship due to non-functioning of his telephone.

14.     It needs little reiteration that in such kind of cases, there is no prescribed formula to determine the quantum of compensation and an element of guesswork is always involved to arrive at a reasonable and adequate compensation, albeit it is not an arbid exercise based on the whims of an Authority. Undoubtedly, it has to depend on the facts and circumstances of the each case. Having regard to the facts of the present case, forcing the Complainant, a senior citizen of age of 76 years to initiate legal action against the Petitioners for redressal of his legitimate grievance, we are of the view that the compensation of ₹2,51,000/- as awarded by the fora below, cannot be said to be disproportionate to the loss suffered by the Complainant and does not warrant any interference.  Resultantly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

15.     The amount deposited by the Petitioners in terms of order dated 07.08.2015 with this Commission, shall be released to the Respondent forthwith along with interest accrued thereof. The balance amount to be paid by the Petitioners in terms of the order passed by the fora below, shall be directly remitted to the Respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of this order till actual realization.