JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:—This complaint is regarding the deficiency in the service of the opposite party and for claim of compensation. 2. The complainant had hired the services of the opposite party for the use of telephone facility. Initially the complainant was allotted a telephone No. 363171 at Pedder Road, Bombay. The average bill used to be approximately for Rs. 2,000/- for per billing period. In January, 1990, the complainant shifted to a new residence at General Jagannath Bhosale Marg, Bombay having a new telephone No. 242715. The complainant used to receive the average bill of Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- for a billing period on his new address. The complainant alleged that although he had hired the services of the opposite party in his name, yet, Telephone No. 242715 stood in the name of one Shri A.S. Ajgaonkar and the bills also used to be in the name of Ajgaonkar. The complainant further alleged that his wife and himself are practising Advocates in the Bombay High Court and used to leave their residence at about 9.30 a.m. and return at about 8.30 p.m. and his two children used to be in the school and, therefore, there was no occasion for anybody to telephone during their absence. The complainant alleged that he was asked to pay the telephone bill for the amount of Rs. 34,395.10 plus Rs. 254 rental charges for 32560 calls dated 1-2-1991. The billing period of the said bill is from 19-1-1990 till 30-4-1991. The said bill also show the amount of Rs. 1000/- for extension charges. The said bill is annexed at Exh. 'B'. The complainant alleged that the aforesaid bill dated 19-1-1990 was excessive and hence he disputed it in writing dated 16-2-1991 addressed to Accounts Officer, Colaba to correct it. A copy of that letter is at Exh. 'C'. In reply, the complainant was informed by a communication dated 20-3-1991 that the said bill has been provisionally split up for payment of Rs. 3,852/- and the balance of Rs. 37,633/- were kept in abeyance till the investigation was completed. In order to save excess billing, the complainant had to discontinue his S.T.D. facility with effect from 16-4-1991. That letter is annexed at Exh. E. The complainant, therefore, apprehended excessive billing and consequential disconnection. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in the service of the opposite party and claimed Rs. 37,633/- were kept in abeyance till the investigation was completed. In order to save excess billing, the complainant had to discontinue his S.T.D. facility with effect from 16-4-1991. That letter is annexed at Exh. E. The complainant, therefore, apprehended excessive billing and consequential disconnection. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in the service of the opposite party and claimed Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for rendering deficient service and resultant loss. 3. In response to the notice under section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, dated 6-7-1991, the opposite party filed written statement dated 27-8-1991 denying the allegations made in the complaint and the claim of compensation. 4. It is significant to note that during the pendency of this complaint, the opposite party intimated the complainant that the bill in question dated 1-2-1991 was wrong due to clerical mistake while preparing the bill. On behalf of the opposite party, one Mr. M.I. Punnoose, the Accounts Officer filed an affidavit dated 4-12-1991 explaining that the bill was for Rs. 4,202 in respect of which Rs. 3,559/- was already paid by the complainant on 24-9-1991 and, therefore, nothing remains, to be decided as regards the claim of compensation. In that affidavit, the opposite party unnecessarily blamed the complainant for filing the present complaint and for not waiting for the completion of the investigation. 5. This complaint was fixed for hearing on 31-10-1991 when the complainant was represented by Mrs. Bhosale. The opposite party remained absent. The complainant requested time to file affidavit which was granted and the complaint was posted on 2-12-1991. On 2-12-1991 the complainant was heard through Mrs. Bhosale. The opposite party again remained absent. The complaint was closed for order. In the meantime, the opposite party filed a counter-affidavit. Opposite Party was also heard on 9-12-1991. 6. Since the opposite party admitted the mistake of sending the wrong bill dated 1-2-1991, it is not necessary to direct the opposite party to waive the balance amount of Rs. 37,636/- from the bill dated 1-2-1991 as alleged in prayer Clause 'A'. The points that survive for our consideration (i) Whether there was any deficiency in the service of the opposite party? (ii) Whether as a result of such deficiency the complainant was put to a loss? (iii) and, whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? 7. From the facts proved, we find the following deficiency in the service of the opposite party. (ii) Whether as a result of such deficiency the complainant was put to a loss? (iii) and, whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? 7. From the facts proved, we find the following deficiency in the service of the opposite party. (a) A wrong bill dated 1-2-1991 was sent for Rs. 34,395.10 although in reality, the bill was for Rs. 3,559/- only. (b) The telephone service was hired by the complainant for his use and yet the bills were sent in the name of one Shri Ajgaonkar every month and the complainant used to be intimated on phone only for the payment of those bills. The said bills are placed on record by the complainant vide Annexure 'A'. We failed to understand when the telephone service was hired by the complainant why the intimation of the bills were being sent to Shri A.S. Ajgaonkar? (c) Although the complainant paid the bills regularly in the past, his telephone connection was disconnected on 3-7-1991 during the pendency of this complaint. The instant complaint dated 15-5-1991 was entertained by this Commission and a notice under section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act was issued on 6th July, 1991. Thus, the disconnection of the complainant's telephone was without a written notice and without following rules governing the disconnection. (d) In absence of a written bill addressed to the complainant, oral threats were being given to the complainant for the disconnection of the telephone connection. (e) For fear of disconnection of his telephone facility the complainant had to stop his S.T.D. facility. 8. We find from the aforesaid facts and circumstances that there was clearly deficiency in the service of the opposite party in as much as no proper service of correct calculation of the amount proper service of notice and proper rules were not followed for purposes of disconnection of Telephone facility. 9. From the facts stated above, we are convinced that as a result of the deficiency in the service of the opposite party, the complainant had to disconnect his S.T.D. facility apprehending excessive billing. The complainant having received the average bill within the range of Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- in respect of his telephone, in a billing period, was asked to pay the bill dated 1-2-1991 for Rs. 34,395.10. The complainant having received the average bill within the range of Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- in respect of his telephone, in a billing period, was asked to pay the bill dated 1-2-1991 for Rs. 34,395.10. The complainant, therefore, entertained reasonable apprehension in his mind that if he continues his S.T.D., facility, he would be getting staggering amount of bill. Therefore, with that apprehension in his mind, he had voluntarily requested the disconnection of his S.T.D. facility. The complainant and his wife are the practising Advocates. The complainant was the former Judge of the Bombay High Court and prior to that had served as the Advocate General of the Maharashtra State. It is, therefore, very obvious that a person of such eminence in the Society had to entertain the apprehension of excess billing and had to remain without S.T.D. facility due to fear of excessive bill. Thus, the complainant had to forego the S.T.D. facility due to the deficient service of Opposite Party. We are, therefore, convinced that the complainant was put to considerable inconvenience and loss of Telephone facility, due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party. The telephone without S.T.D. facility, apprehension of getting excessive bill and not properly sending the bills in the name of complainant did cause sufferance to the complainant. Hence, in our opinion, the complainant is entitled for the compensation for the loss suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party. 10. The loss sustained by the complainant cannot be computed in the terms of money although the complainant has quantified the amount of loss for Rs. 1,00,000/-. We can imagine the suffering and inconvenience caused to the complainant but we do not agree for quantum of Rs. 1,00,000/- stated by complainant claiming the loss suffered by him. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, it would meet the ends of justice in this case to quantify the amount of award compensation at Rs. 25,000/-. The amount of compensation ordered to be paid to the complainant is on the basis of the inconvenience and loss which the man of his occupation and status have suffered. In the result, we find that the complainant has proved the allegations in this complaint and hence we pass the following order :--- ORDER 11. The complain is allowed and the opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. In the result, we find that the complainant has proved the allegations in this complaint and hence we pass the following order :--- ORDER 11. The complain is allowed and the opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 25,000 as exemplary compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of this complaint. The amount of compensation and costs be paid to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till realisation. Complaint allowed. *****