Per – Hon’ble Mr. Narendra Kawde, Member Heard Adv. Ajay Pawar proxy advocate for Adv. Anand Patwardhan on behalf of the Complainants and Adv. Smt. Neeta Masurkar on behalf of the Opponents. [2] The Complainants have filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents for arbitrarily disconnecting their landline telephone connection inspite of regular payment of bill well in time and without prior intimation as contemplated under the law and claimed a monetary relief of total amounting to `12,91,561.41ps., under various heads as enumerated in the prayer clause of the complaint. [3] Opponents contested the complaint and the claim of the Complainants by filing their joint written version inter-alia contending that there is no deficiency in service on their part since in the present case the action taken by the Opponents as regards disconnection of telephone connection allotted to the Complainants was a bonafide action taken in good faith and upon receiving relevant information the telephone connection allotted to the Complainants was duly restored. It is also contended that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint since Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act provides for referring to arbitration any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arising between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit it has been provided. Moreover, it is also submitted that prior to disconnection due notice was given to the Complainants on 12/9/1997 at 11:30 hours through Sister Mahajan, an employee of the Complainants on telephone and thereafter the telephone was put under disconnection 18/8/1997. On these main grounds amongst others, it is prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint. [4] Parties have filed their respective affidavits in evidence as contemplated under Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in support of their respective claims. [5] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents on the record. [6] With regard to jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain, try and decide the complaint in the light of provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, the Full Bench of this State Commission by an order dated 6/11/2012 passed in Appeal No.185 of 1999 [In the matters of General Manager (Leased Circuit), MTNL and Others Vs. Sandeep Dattatraya Uddhao and Others] has already taken a view that Consumer Fora have a jurisdiction to entertain consumer complaints as against the ‘service providers’ as defined under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 so far as individual consumers are concerned. Therefore, in the present case, we find no substance in the stand taken by the Opponents that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint. We hold accordingly. Here, it is clarified that present complaint was filed in the year 1999 and at that time the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission was above `5,00,000/- and below `20,00,000/-. Therefore, the complaint was entertained by State Commission. [7] The fact that the telephone connection allotted to the Complainants was disconnected for a period of 295 days as from 18/8/1997 to 8/6/1998 is not in dispute. According to the Opponents, the telephone connection was disconnected for non-payment of the bill dated 1/6/1997 for an amount of `294/-. Letter issued by Department of Telecommunication through S.D.E. (Groups), Murbad shows that the Complainants had deposited an amount of `294/- under Receipt No.175 on 27/6/1997 against a bill dated 1/6/1997. Thus, the disputed bill for the alleged non-payment of which the telephone connection was disconnected on 18/8/1997 was paid by the Complainants well in time on 27/6/1997 and inspite of such payment being made by the Complainants and without verifying these facts from their collecting office, the Opponents disconnected the telephone connection for a long duration of 295 days. This act on the part of the Opponents cannot be justified and thus, we hold that arbitrarily disconnecting the telephone connection of the Complainants there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents. Learned Counsel for the Opponents tried to justify the act on the part of the Opponents as regards disconnection of telephone connection allotted to the Complainants by stating that at the relevant time there was no computerized system and further stated that it was a bonafide action taken in good faith and upon receiving relevant information the telephone connection allotted to the Complainants was duly restored. We are afraid that such a baseless ground would not come to the rescue of the Opponents and for the deficiency in service on their part the Opponents are liable to pay compensation to the Complainant. [8] The Complainants have claimed an amount of `876.26ps., towards expenses incurred by for making telephone calls through a telephone. Said claim is supported by receipts annexed to the complaint. We find this claim to be just and proper and we allow the same. With regard to the other claims, here it may be suffice to state that either those claims are hypothetical or too remote to the cause of action and hence, those cannot be allowed. However, by unnecessarily and arbitrarily disconnecting the telephone connection the Opponents have caused a legal injury to the Complainants. With regard to award of compensation under Section-14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Consumer Unity & Trust Society, Jaipur Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & Anr. ~ 1986-95-CONSUMER-1546-(NS); observed as follows :- “Negligence is absence of reasonable or prudent care which a reasonable person is expected to observe in a given set of circumstances. But the negligence for which a consumer can claim to be compensated under this sub-section must cause some loss or injury to him. Loss is a generic term. It signifies some detriment or deprivation or damage. Injury too means any damage or wrong. It means ‘invasion of any legally protected interest of another’. Thus the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) are attracted if the person from whom damages are claimed is found to have acted negligently and such negligence must result in some loss to the person claiming damages. In other words, loss or injury, if any, must flow from negligence.” In the present case, a legal injury is caused to the Complainant due to negligence on the part of the Opponents and, therefore, in order to recognize their legally protected rights, they need to be compensated. In the present case, in the given set of circumstances, we feel that if the Opponents are directed to pay to the Complainants, a sum of `25,000/- towards compensation, it would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the Opponents are liable to pay to the Complainants a total amount of `25,876.26ps., rounded off to `25,877/- besides reasonable costs of `5,000/-. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:- ORDER The complaint is partly allowed. Opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay to the Complainants an amount of `25,877/- within a period of two months from the date of this order and failing which, the Opponents shall be liable to pay this amount together with interest thereon @ 12% p.a., as from the date of expiry of stipulated period of two months till realization of the amounts by the Complainants. Opponents shall bear their own costs and pay costs of `5,000/- to the Complainants. Rest of the claims of the Complainants stands rejected. Pronounced on 22nd February, 2013 |
