JUDGMENT R. B. Misra, President.—The present appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment of the District Consumer Forum, Shimla, dated 16th July, 1(>91 The case of the complainant as revealed from the complaint and other materials on the record is that the complainant was a Government servant who retired on 30th June, 1984. He was resident of 82/2, Ganj Road, Shimla and user of residential telephone No 3148 since December, 1975. The telephone number was subsequently changed to 5678 and again changed to 2193. He further alleged that the same telephone number was installed at the residence of Chief Accounts Officer of the Telecommunication Department Itself later on. His further case is that the complainant was billed not only for the use of the telephone by him but also for the use made by the Chief Accounts Officer from the parallel telephone which was installed in his residential house. As will be evident from pages 51 to 61 of the Telecom Telephone Directory 1987 and pages of the H. P. Telecom Supplementary Telephone Directory 1989 and page 149 of the Government of Himachal Pradesh Official Directory 1989-90. 2 The complainant went on deputation out of India in Nepal. His telephone was disconnected in advance even before his family left Shimla to join the complainant. Vide bills of the telephone Department dated 16-11-1981 to 25-12-1981. the complainant was billed for calls including one call for New Delhi. When the complainant contacted T. D. E.s office, the bills were taken back from him These calls must have been made by the Chief Accounts Officer from the parallel connection of the telephone No. 5678, Again vide bills dated 1-11-1987 (during the period when the S. T D operated), the complainant was over billed to Rs 60 out of the total number of calls for Rs. 200 when the complainant made representation to the Department on 10-11-1987 the same was reduced from Rs. 2(0 to Rs. 133. Here also the entire calls must have been made by the Chief Accounts Officer from the parallel telephone of the game number. Here also, one call was for New Delhi. 3. Fed up with the wrong and excessive billing by the Department, the complainant applied to the Department for S. T. D. ban on 27-9-1985. 2(0 to Rs. 133. Here also the entire calls must have been made by the Chief Accounts Officer from the parallel telephone of the game number. Here also, one call was for New Delhi. 3. Fed up with the wrong and excessive billing by the Department, the complainant applied to the Department for S. T. D. ban on 27-9-1985. No action was however taken on that application and remained pending for 4 years On receipt of the highly excessive and imaginary bills, the complainant again applied for S. T. D ban This request was accepted after 8 months. The complainant continued to be penalised so far for no fault of his 4. The complainant has been subscribing to his residential telephone No. 3148 (revised to 5678) since 1975. Right upto 30th June, 1989, he has been paying bills on time without any damur. Five consecutive bills from 1-7-1989 were highly excessive. After taking up the matter with the D T E. more than once and an appeal was filed with the G. M. T, Shimla The appeal was still pending with him when on 24th April, 1990, the telephone was disconnected without giving him any notice verbal or written. On 25th April, 1990, a communication dated 18-4-1990 was received. The envelope clearly bore twice postal stamps (of the date of posting and delivery stamps) on 25th April, 1990. This establishes and irrevocably proves that the letter was deliberately ante-dated as 18-4-1990 and was posted actually on 25th April, 199;), after the department had actually disconnected his telephone and this clearly shows mala fide intention and enmical treatment to him with the set purpose of causing him harassment and mental torture. 5. The complainant gave the details of the excessive five bills — Date of Bill Period Rs. 1-7-89 16-4-89 to 15-6-89 3182 1-9-89 16-6-89 to 15-8-89 1044 1-11-89 16-8-89 to 15-10-89 988 1-1-90 16-10-89 to 15-12- 748 On the representation of the complainant, he was allowed a rebate of Rs. 1,962 in the bill dated 1-7-1989 which was insufficient and claims full rebate i. e., he is not to pay for any local calls beyond the permissible free calls. 6. The complainant relied on bills of the previous year to show that the average of the last one year has been in the region of about 400 to 500 calls. 1,962 in the bill dated 1-7-1989 which was insufficient and claims full rebate i. e., he is not to pay for any local calls beyond the permissible free calls. 6. The complainant relied on bills of the previous year to show that the average of the last one year has been in the region of about 400 to 500 calls. The abrupt ten-fold spurt in inexplicable as no special occasion or cause therefor has been shown by the respondent It is difficult to appreciate why only a partial rebate was allowed by the department and that too only in respect of bill dated 1-7-198 and not in the remaining four bills aforesaid. 7. The complainant further alleged that without a warning, his telephone was disconnected on 24-4-1990. To the latest complaint by the appellant to the department. No. 1662 at 6 M on 27-4-19^0 his daughter was told on telephone that the telephone will be set right. But, neither his daughter nor any other member was told about the disconnection of the telephone Departments letter dated 11-1-1990 admits failure of the department in many respects. 8. The complainant further alleged that his wife was a heart patient and there has been regular treatment of his wife for the same and be used to get advice from the doctors concerned who had been treating her. The department, however, illegally disconnected the telephone from the residence of the complainant without giving any notice to the complainant or without even giving any warning that his telephone would be disconnected if the arrears of dues are not paid. When his wife got heart attack at about 1 a m., he could not get the help of the doctors for no fault of the complainant The complainant has already made grievance to the department that the bills issued to him for the use of telephone was highly excessive and it did not represent the correct state of affairs. 9. The complainant getting no response from the telecom department on the representation made by him, he went up in appeal to tne General Manager (Telecom) and the appeal was still pending before him regarding the grievances of excessive billing. But in the meantime, the telephone was disconnected with the result that he could not get proper medical aid for his ailing wife and eventually she expired for want of any medical facility. But in the meantime, the telephone was disconnected with the result that he could not get proper medical aid for his ailing wife and eventually she expired for want of any medical facility. He, therefore, claimed a damages of Rs. 93,Ou0/- for the death of his wife and for the harassment caused by the Telecom Department, physical and mental pain on account of the contumacious behaviour of the telephone Department. He also prayed for the immediate restoration of the telephone without payment of restoration charges of telephone connection No. 5678 now 2193 disconnected illegally since 24th April, 1^90 Further stay of the payment of bills dated 1-9-1989, 1-11-1989, 1-1-1990 and 1-3-1990 as the department was guilty of excessive metering. He also prayed for grant of rebate for rectal charges from 24-4-1990 to the date preceding the restoration of the telephone, refund with interest at the rate of 18% of the amount charged in excess, grant of appropriate relief for causing undue infamy and mental torture due to illegal disconnection. 10 The respondent contested the claim on ground inter alia that in view of the arbitration provision under the Indian Telephone Act, the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. 11. That it was only by way of error that in the telephone directory the same telephone number has been shown at two places one to the complain ant and the other in the residential house of the Chief Accounts Officer, but in point of fact, another phone has been allotted and installed with effect from 22-7-1989 to the Chief Accounts Officer of the Department. 12. That the complainant was allowed rebate of an amount of Rs. 1,962/- in the bill dated 1-7-1989, but the complainant claimed full rebate i.e. he is not to pay for any local calls beyond the permissible free calls. 13. That the death of the complainants wife was not because of the absence of telephone at his residence, but because of other circumstances, and the complainant cannot claim any damages on that account because that was in any case a remote cause and not the immediate cause for the death of his wife. 14. 13. That the death of the complainants wife was not because of the absence of telephone at his residence, but because of other circumstances, and the complainant cannot claim any damages on that account because that was in any case a remote cause and not the immediate cause for the death of his wife. 14. The complainant in support of his allegations has produced evidence to show that his wife was a heart patient as would be evident from the E.CG report dated 11-4-1986 and B. C. G. report dated 14-6-1990 of Ripon Hospital Shimla and prescription dated 4-10-1988 of the Regional Ayurvedic Hospital Shimla, the prescription dated 14-6-1990 of the Medical Specialist of Ripon Hospital Shimla, prescription of the doctors dated (6-6-1990 The complainant used to get telephonic advice/ treatment under emergent circumstances from the doctors concerned, but by illegal disconnection of his telephone, he could not summon doctors and highly needed medical aids could not be given to his dying wife. She got heart attack at the dead of night at 1 a m. but as his telephone had already been disconnected on 24-4-1990, he could not get the medical aid at such an odd hour of the night, nor could he approach any other person on telephone 15. The complainant applied to the Forum for summoning of material documents viz t— (i) Fault Card Register, (ii) Bills Register. (iii) Periodical Phone (.Residential) bills of two of the A. A. O.s. Telecom Shimla- (iv) Telephone Bills for 5678 of the period dated 11-6-1980 to 11-12-1991 and 26th October 1981 to 25th December, 1981. (v) Dates on which the meter of Telephone No 5678 now 2193 since lth March, 1990 was required to be checked and with what result. (iv) Complaint Register dated 24th April, 1990. 15. All these documents could not be made available by the Department on the pretext that most of these records have been weeded out. Effort was made by the complainant that the Department should produce the order of the authority concerned for the weeding out of the record, but nothing of the kind has been produced The documents summoned might have proved it to the hilt that the same telephone viz 5678 was being used by the Chief Accounts Officer of the Department of Telecom also. This is why that even after the telephone of the complainant had been disconnected he was billed for the use of the telephone whoa he actually did not and could not use the telephone during that period and when a complaint was made by the complainant to the Department, they took basic the bills and gave some rebate arbitrarily, but not the full rebate to which the complainant was entitled to. 15-A. The District Consumer Forum overruled the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction and held that the forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and decide it and observed that arbitration clause in the Indian Telegraph Act will not deprive the Consumer Forum of its right to entertain the complaint and adjudicate on it The Forum also came to the conclusion that the telephone of the complainant has been disconnected illegally without any notice to him The telephone of the complainant was disconnected on 24th April, 19vO and the notice alleged to have been sent by the Department for the payment of the does was posted on 25th April, 1990 as would be evident from the envelope. Therefore, the requisite notice which should have given a week time to deposit was posted on the 25th and the telephone had been disconnected on 24th April, 1990. 16. As regards the rebate in the excess billing, the District Consumer Forum has worked out a principle that average bill of the previous year plus 10% above would be the amount of rebate to be paid by the Department of Telecommunication to the complainant The department had given rebate only in the bill, dated 1-7-1989 for Rs 3,182 only, but not in the other four bills which were also inflated. It will be pertinent to refer to the observations of the District Consumer Forum on this point t— "However, from the provisional bill dated 1-7-1989 made due for payment on 14-8-1989, it is observed that average of the last one year has been in the region of the about 400 to 500 calls. The abrupt ten-fold spurt thus seems unexplainable, in particular, as no special occasion or cause therefor has been shown by the opposite party The rationale of the rebate already allowed too remains shrouded in mistery. The abrupt ten-fold spurt thus seems unexplainable, in particular, as no special occasion or cause therefor has been shown by the opposite party The rationale of the rebate already allowed too remains shrouded in mistery. In the light of these considerations we have bat to conclude that more rebate than already allowed is justified for the same reasons as under-pinned ; the departmental decision under challenge before us. We accordingly, deem it just and fair to direct. it is truly said that no defendant is responsible ad infinitum even to the person injured by him For all the ulterior consequences ot his wrongful act however remote in time and however indirect the process of causation. "The law cannot take into account of everything that follows a wrongful act, it regards some subsequent matters as outside the scope of its selection, because it were intricate for the law to judge the cause of cause, or consequences of consequences. In the varied web of affairs, the law must abstract some consequences as relevant, not perhaps on ground of pure logic, but simply for practical reasons." When it is said that damage is too remote, it means that the damage and the loss are not sufficiently connected as cause and effect, that is, the wrongful act must be the causa causans of the damages in question and not merely the cause sine qua non. The enquiry must therefore be directed to find out the real cause among the various causes which preceded the damage suffered by the plaintiff, 17. An event is frequently the result of a number of antecedent acts or events each of which is as much a contributory factor as another. It is the province of the Judge by adopting a common-sense approach to pick out the factor. The leading case on the point is Re Polemis and Furness Withy and Co. (1921) 1 K.B 560 CA. In that case a ship was hired under a charter which excepted both the shipowner and charterers from liability for fare. Some of the cargo loaded in the ship was a quantity of benzine and/or petrol in tins. Owning to leakage in the tins during the voyage the ships hold was filled with inflammable vapour. (1921) 1 K.B 560 CA. In that case a ship was hired under a charter which excepted both the shipowner and charterers from liability for fare. Some of the cargo loaded in the ship was a quantity of benzine and/or petrol in tins. Owning to leakage in the tins during the voyage the ships hold was filled with inflammable vapour. At an intermediate port of all stevedores, who were the servants of the charterers, negligently let a plank drop into the hold while they were shifting the cargo The plank in its descent into the hold somehow struck a spark which ignited the vapour causing a fire which consumed the entire ship. The Court of Appeal held the charterers liable for the entire value of the ship amounting to £2,00,000. The exception clause did not save the charterers from liability as it did not cover negligence on the part of their servants. There cause of the fire being the negligence of the defendants servants they were liable for all the direct consequence; of the negligence, even though they could not have been reasonably foreseen, Bankes, LJ , said" t It is immaterial that the causing of the spark, by the falling of the plank could not have been reasonably anticipated given the breach of duty which constitutes the negligence the anticipation of the person whose negligent act has produced the damage appears to me to be irrelevant. The presence or absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the legal quality of the act as negligent or innocent If it be thus determined to be negligent, then the question whether the particular damages are recoverable depends only on the answer whether they are the direct consequences of the act." In the same case Scrutton LJ., said : "1 cannot think it useful to say the damage must be the natural and probable result. Once the act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen in immaterial. Once the act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen in immaterial. If the act would or might probably cause damage, the fact that the damage in fact caused, is not the exact kind of damage one would except, is immaterial so long as the damage is in fact directly traceable to the negligent act, and not due to the operation of" independent causes having no connection with the negligent act, except that they could not avoid its result The same principle was reiterated in a number of subsequent cases viz , Aldham v United Dairies (London) Ltd., (1939) 4 All EK 52/ at 527. In all these cases, the principle laid down in Re Polemis has been confirmed and now the well established principle is that once breach of duty to he plaintiff is established, one has no longer to consider whether the consequences could reasonably be anticipated by the wrongdoer. The question is whether the consequences causing damage are the direct result of the wrongful act or omission No doubt, the particular injury was not contemplated by the defendants, but it is plain from Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Company, that this is Immaterial. Several other cases have approved and applied this principle without reservations and have accepted it as settled law. This principle is better expressed by saying that a wrong-doer must take his victims he find him." 18. This brings us to the question of the relevancy of the rule in Re Polemis in its application to what are known as "parasitic damages". "Parasitic damages" are those damages, though the incurring of which may not by itself give a cause of action may from the subject-matter of recovery along with and in addition to those damages which by themselves furnish a cause of action. Thus, where the defendants breach of duty produces an actionable item of damage as well as an item of damage which is not actionable in itself damages in respect of the latter may be tacked on to the former as parasitic. In Lampert v. Eastern National Omnibus Co. Ltd., (1954) 2 All ER 719, was inclined to award such damages, viz., loss of consortium if the main cause of action was proved. In that case the plaintiff was injured in the face in an accident and was consequently dis figured. In Lampert v. Eastern National Omnibus Co. Ltd., (1954) 2 All ER 719, was inclined to award such damages, viz., loss of consortium if the main cause of action was proved. In that case the plaintiff was injured in the face in an accident and was consequently dis figured. In an action for personal injuries she claimed in addition to general damages special damages for loss of her husband by estrangement, Hilbury J., said s "The plaintiff claims that in consequence of the negligence of the defendant she was disfigured and that the result had been that her husband left her. It is plain that a wife under English law has not, and never had, a claim merely for loss of consortium. But the plaintiff is not alleging as the cause of action, the loss of consortium. She is alleging that she lost her husband who disserted her as a result of her injury, and that is a part of the consequential damage which flowed from the tortious negligence of the defendant which caused the injury. 19. In view of the said authorities, the appellant could not be deprived of the compensation merely on the ground that the cause of the death of his wife was not the absence of telephone as a result of illegal disconnection, but because of other factors. The theory of parasitic damages is equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 20. The observation of the District Forum that they would only sympathise with the complainant/appellant for the loss of his wife on account of the illegal disconnection of the telephone by the Department is only lip sympathy. But mere expression of sympathy would be a poor solace to the complainant. He would have the lasting regret for the death of his wife as he could not make available the medical aid in the hour of need in the absence of telephone which had been illegally disconnected They say, "of all sad words of tongue or pen the saddest arc these it might have been." 21. The Counsel for the respondent also urged that the appellant had Dot specified the various heads under which he was claiming compensation and, therefore, he could not be granted any compensation on that account. The Counsel for the respondent also urged that the appellant had Dot specified the various heads under which he was claiming compensation and, therefore, he could not be granted any compensation on that account. It is true that the complainant had not specified in the beginning the various heads under which he was claiming damages, but at a later stage, he has specified the various heads under which he was claiming damages. In his written arguments also, he has specified the various heads under which he was claiming compensation and the complainant/ appellant would not be deprived of the Just and fair compensation if he has been able to establish by cogent evidence that he has suffered a loss. The complainant/appellant never engaged a Counsel and he had drafted the complaint and other affidavits himself and in the absence of legal aid from an expert, there may be sortie deficiency in the complaint or in the affidavits. But, by and large he has ventilated his grievances and, therefore, due concession must be given to him on that account. 22. A similar case cropped up before the Gujarat High Court and the Gujarat High Court in Babu Mansa v. Ahmedabad Municipality and others, AIR 1978 Guj 134 observed ;— "It is true that in the claim application the compensation claimed by the appellant under this head was confined to Rs. 1,000. However, so long as the total amount to be awarded does not exceed the total amount claimed, there should be no objection in awarding higher amount than that claimed under one particular head, if on the true assessment of the evidence led at the trial, the claimant is found entitled to the same. In an application for compensation made under section 1 !0 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19j9 read with Rule 291 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 and the prescribed form Comp. A, the relevant particular which the claimant has to set out relates to the quantum of compensation and basis thereof. The basis has to be broadly indicated on estimates. Besides, heads of compensation have to be regarded separately as aids to reaching a just amount. A, the relevant particular which the claimant has to set out relates to the quantum of compensation and basis thereof. The basis has to be broadly indicated on estimates. Besides, heads of compensation have to be regarded separately as aids to reaching a just amount. The Tribunals power to award just and proper compensation is, therefore, not fattered by the specification of an amount in the claim application under any head." Reliance was placed by them in an earlier decision in Bai Nonda v. Shivabhai, (1966) 7 Guj L. R 662.. It was held in that case that once loss under both the heads comprised in sections 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 has been claimed and so long as the amount awarded can be suitably spilt up and awarded under the said two sections. The same principle will apply in cases of personal injury. So long as the award does not exceed the total amount claimed, there should be no objection in spliting it up under different heads and even if a specific amount is claimed under a particular head, the Tribunal has the power to award an excess amount under that very head without amendment of the claim application provided the evidence justifies it. 23. In the same case, it was further held in paragraph 28 ;— "It is well settled that a person injured by anothers wrong is entitled to general damages for non-pecuniary loss such as his pain and suffering, past and future, and his loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. Damages are also recoverable for loss of expectation of life. Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the Court in the light of previous decisions..." 24. The same view finds support from the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Mis Raghbar Dutt Pyare Lai and others v. Smt. Malka Rani end others. C990) ! Sim LC 72, in which it was held that the Court has to assess just compensation on the basis of evidence adduced in the case. The conclusion on this aspect may vary with the amount of income mentioned in the claim petition and it is not necessary that the figure other than this cannot be arrived at while assessing the just com pensation. The conclusion on this aspect may vary with the amount of income mentioned in the claim petition and it is not necessary that the figure other than this cannot be arrived at while assessing the just com pensation. Tt may be that the total compensation awarded may not exceed the limit of the amount claimed. 25. We would also draw the pointed attention to the contents of paragraphs 25 to 27 of the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong, AIR 1990 Gau 47. 26. The appellant further contended that the finding of the District Forum that the telephone directory of various years show that the same telephone number was given to the complainant and later on the same was allotted to the Chief Accounts Officer earlier and the present one. In support of his contention, he has filed the copies of various telephone directories to bear him out. but the District Forum has brushed aside those argument on the ground that sometimes errors do occur in the printing. The complainant had challenged the depart. To cite any case where the same telephone No was given to two persons in the directory and if so, why was not there a corrigendum by the department and it is only when the complainant pointed out that the department gave a rebate or in some cases withheld the bills and this clearly indicates that there has been some hanky pankv by the department, in the case of the complainant. Either it was actuated by malice or to harass the complainant. The complainant has been running from pillar to post to get the same rectified but in vain. Fed-up with the high billing, he applied for the STD ban, but that application itself was kept pending for four years and on repeated demand by the complainant as to why the STD was not disconnected from his residence the only reply was that his application was kept on the waiting list and it will be disposed off in due course according to the serial number of the waiting list. The complainant at long last again applied for the banning of the STD facility, but that application was also kept pending for about 8 months and then at long last the STD ban was ordered and even after STD was banned, the inflated and excessive bills used to be sent to the complainant. The application of the complainant for summoning the material records from tbe telephone Department bas also not been heeded to and the papers were withheld on the pretext that they have been weeded out without giving proof of the actual order of seeding out It was further contended that full rebate should have been given for the wrong and inflated bills and the erratic and arbitrary rebate given by the department as also by the District Consumer Forum is unjustified. 27. Having given our anxious consideration to the evidence produced by the parties and the materials on the record, there is no escape from the conclusion that the telephone of the complainant has been disconnected illegally and the attitude of the telephone department bas been one of callousness and indifference to the request of the complainant. 28. The attitude of the department from the very beginning had been to meet illegal treatment to the complainant when he applied for the ban of STD on account of excessive billing that application was also kept pending for years together and all the time, he was given excessive bills even after his application for STD Ban was there. It was sought to be argued for the respondent that in view of Rule i43 of the Telegraph Act, even a notice by telephone was quite sufficient and there is no requirement of law that a written notice should be given to the subscriber for nonpayment of dues 29. In view of the principles laid down in the authorities aforesaid, we would allow compensation to the appellant. The appellant has claimed compensation as under;—- (a) mental shock and imbalance of mind caused to husband (self) Rs 50,000 (b) Upsetting of family affairs ; Rs 15,000 (c) Abrupt and indelible shock to the then unmarried daughter ; Rs. 20,000 (d) Depriving motherly love and affection to the elder son and the younger son ; Rs. 10,000 Total Rs 95,000 30. We think that the ends of justice could be met if we allow in all a sum of Rs. 20,000 (d) Depriving motherly love and affection to the elder son and the younger son ; Rs. 10,000 Total Rs 95,000 30. We think that the ends of justice could be met if we allow in all a sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the appellant taking into consideration the various heads enumerated by the appellant in his written arguments. 31. For the reasons given above, the appeal of the complainant must be allowed and he must get compensation for the death of his wife as well as compensation for the harassment and mental torture as he could not get medical aid when it was highly needed at the dead of night on account of the illegal disconnection of the telephone. He was mentally worried all this period and the death of his wife is an economic loss to the husband and to her sons and daughters. We assess the compensation to Rs. 25,000. The complainant is also entitled to get full rebate on the 5 bills and the excess amount, if any, already charged from the complainant by the depart ment should be refunded to him within 2 months failing which the department will have to pay Rs. 100 per day as penalty. We accordingly, allow the appeal in part and the order of the District Forum stands modified to that extent and the respondent is also further directed to restore the telephone connection within the same period without charging for the restoration of the telephone. The file, after completion, be consigned to the record. Appeal allowed.