(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 22/09/2006 in Consumer Complaint No.154/06, Shri Stanley Rodriguesr Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District (‘Forum’ in short).
(2) The appellant is present in person. Respondent, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. preferred to remain absent in spite of notice published on notice board and on internet and even though by way of abundant precaution, an intimation was sent by post on 19/01/2012 on the mentioned address which is returned back with an endorsement ‘left’. It may be pointed out that MTNl is a party in many proceedings before this Commission and their officials as well as lawyers regularly represent it before the Commission and they are aware of the matters took out from sine-die list. Under the circumstances, we prefer to hear the appellant in person in absence of respondent. The appeal is for admission.
(3) In the instances case, holding deficiency in service on the part of the MTNL, compensation is awarded `300/- to the complainant as against the `5 lacs as sought by the complainant towards loss in business The forum has rightly held that loss in business cannot be a consumer dispute. The appellant has remedy to Civil Court which he could avail. There is no evidence adduced by the complainant to justify his huge claim. Under the circumstances, we find no fault with the order. The appeal is devoid of substance. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal is not admitted and stands dismissed accordingly.
(2) In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
Pronounced on 2nd February, 2012.
