The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that the telephone connection was taken from the Ori.OP/appellant in the name of complainant’s maternal uncle. The complainant is residing in that house, where said connection was taken and he is paying regularly the bills of the said connection. However, the said telephone had become out of order on 20/6/2000 and 27/6/2000 and hence complainant made complaint on that date to the OP/appellant, but the said defect was removed after 16 days i.e. on 7/7/2000. Second time was also the telephone became out of order and hence complaint was made to OP on 23/7/2000 and the fault was removed on 24/7/2000. The complainant, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.26500/- from the OP/appellant towards negligence and mental harassment. He also prayed for direction to the OP to give him rental rebate and cost of the complaint.

            The Ori. OP/appellant filed written version and resisted the complaint. It submitted that the complaint of the complainant was received on 20/6/2000 and it was found that the fault was in cable wire and, that was removed on 7/7/2000. It also submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as telephone connection is not given in his name, and hence complaint is not maintainable. It has shown readiness to give rental rebate to the complainant for that period of 16 days and thus it submitted that the complaint may be dismissed.

            The District Forum below, after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the complainant is the beneficiary and hence complaint filed by him is maintainable. It also held that the complaint about non working of the telephone was given by the complainant to the OP/appellant on 20/6/2000 and his complaint was sent to cable section on 5/7/2000 and the fault was removed on 7/7/2000 and thus no steps were taken for 15 days for removal of the defect and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to the compensation. It directed the Ori. OP/appellant to pay to the complainant Rs.5000/- towards mental harassment within 30 days of the receipt of that order and in case of default, the said amount shall carry interest @18% p.a. It also directed the Ori.OP to give rental rebate of 16 days to the complainant and also to pay him Rs.300/- towards cost of complaint.

            Feeling aggrieved by that order, the Ori.OP has preferred this appeal. We have heard Advocate of the appellant. The Respondent/Ori.complainant failed to appear for final hearing despite of service of notice. However, he filed WNArguments. We have perused all the papers placed before us by both the sides.

            The Ld.Advocate of the appellant submitted that complainant is not a consumer or a beneficiary and hence complaint is not maintainable. He also submitted that vide Sec.7(B) of Indian Telegraph Act, an arbitrator is required to be appointed to decide the dispute and hence the Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. He has also invited our attention to Rule No.474 of Indian Telegraph Rules in support of his submission that if there is interruption in circuits for a period of 7 days or more only proportionate rebate in rental can be allowed and the department can not be held responsible for loss caused due to said interruption. Thus, according to the Ld.Advocate of the appellant, these material facts were not considered by the Forum and hence impugned order is illegal and it may be set aside. He relied upon observation made in the case of Divisional Engineer, Telegraph Vs. Sunilkumar Sinha, II (1996) CPJ 140 Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna. In that case, the telephone of an Advocate remained out of order for 15 days due to cable defect as the said defect could not be detected after making vigorous efforts by the appellant. Therefore, it is held that it does not amount to deficiency in service on the part of Ori.OP/Appellant.

            On the other hand, the Ori.Complainant/Respondent, in his WNA supported the impugned order and relied upon observations made in following cases.

a)      General Manager, Telecommunication & Ors.Vs.P.K. Mohommed Ali, III (1997) CPJ 447 Kerala SCDRC

b)      Calcatta Telephone Vs.Sailendranath Chakravarty, I (1998) CPJ 208 WB SCDRC

c)      MTNL Vs.Shri Satbhushan Jain, I (2000) CPJ 230 Delhi SCDRC.

            In the aforesaid cases, the Ld.State Commissions held that the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation to the respective complainants in case of non working of the telephones.

            We have considered the submissions of both parties and the documents placed before us by them. Admittedly, the Ori.Complainant/Respondent herein is residing in the premises of his maternal Uncle and paying telephone bills regularly to the appellant. Moreover, the affidavit of his maternal Uncle Shri.Girdharilal Ishwardasji Singhania is filed on record who also stated in his affidavit that complainant is residing in his premises with his consent and complainant is also the beneficiary of the telephone connection. Therefore we hold that District Forum below has rightly held that complainant is a consumer.

            The full bench of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in the case of General Manager (Leased Circuit) MTNL & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Dattaraya Uddhav & Ors. in bunch of appeal Nos.185/99,1743/2003,101/2009,692/2007,162/2012 decided on 6/1/2012 has held that Consumer Forums have a jurisdiction to entertain Consumer Complaints as against the service providers as defined in Post and Telegraph Act and Telephone Regulatory Authority of India Act,1997, so far as individual consumers/complainants are concerned. Therefore, the complaint filed by the present respondent is maintainable.

            Undisputedly, the telephone given by the appellant was not working for a period of 16 days i.e. from 20/6/2000 to 7/7/2000. The appellant did not take effective steps during that period for removal of the defect. On the contrary, it is seen from the record that the complaint dated 20/6/2000 made by the complainant, was for the first time was taken into consideration by the Appellant on 5/7/2000 and, thereafter, defect was removed on 7/7/2000. Therefore, certainly there is deficiency in service provided by appellant to the Respondent/complainant. The Appellant is relying rule 474 of Indian Telegraph Rules,1951. Under that rule only proportionate rebate in rental is permitted in case of interruption in circuits. However, we find that the said rule is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case, as there is no evidence to show that due to interruption in circuit, the telephone of the Complainant had gone out of order.

            The Forum below assessed compensation of Rs.5000/- towards mental harassment which is excessive. Under the facts and circumstances, we hold that the said compensation should be Rs.2500/-. Thus we find that the aforesaid decision of the Ld. Bihar SCDRC relied upon by Ld.Advocate of the appellant is not applicable to the present case. The appeal deserves to be partly allowed in view of the aforesaid observations.  Hence order.

 

ORDER

            The appeal is partly allowed.

            The direction given under clause No.1 of the impugned order about quantum of compensation towards mental harassment is modified and substituted to the effect that the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2500/- instead of compensation of Rs.5000/-.

            Rest of the impugned order is confirmed.

            No order as to costs in appeal.