JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:---This is a complaint made by Shri Suresh Pradhan, against M.T.N.L. and its 7 officers alleging deficiencies in the service of M.T.N.L. Apart from the allegations regarding deficiencies in the promised service of M.T.N.L., the complainant also has alleged that the opposite parties 2 to 7 who are the officers of M.T.N.L. were also negligent in their duties in as mush as they never tried to correct the deficiencies despite his repeated request, orally as well as in writing. 2. The allegations of the complainant are described in para 13 of the complaint. Inter alia, the complainant alleged that M.T.N.L. repeatedly failed and neglected to carry out its obligations to the complainant in providing fault-free telephone services. The bills were charged for which no services were rendered and bills were collected in advance without providing services. The complainant alleged that as a result of unfair trade practice mentioned above, the complainant and his family members suffered mental agony, torture and inconvenience in their routine life. The complainant therefore, claimed in this complaint compensation for Rs. 8,02,434.34/- on various counts. 3. Complainant was having telephone facility of M.T.N.L. having telephone No. 652884 at Borivli in Bombay. The complainant alleged that his telephone was not in order on many occasions. I. Between February, 1987 till filing of this complaint i.e. on 27th May, 1992. His telephone was out of order for 275 days. The complainant has alleged that the failure of his telephone for the aforesaid period was on many occasions. In support of his contentions, the complainant has filed at Exh. 12, the details of break-down indicating the days when it was not working. The complainant further alleged that even thereafter, his telephone was not working, for many days for which he has filed the details vide Ex. 4. II. The 2nd deficiency alleged is that the complainant was required to shift his telephone from one room to another room in same house in November, 1987, which he did on 24-11-1987. This fact was communicated immediately to M.T.N.L. on 25-11-1987. Exh. 3 is the copy of the intimation. III. The complainant alleged that in a bill dated 21-2-1988 he was charged Rs. 600/- for shifting of the telephone from one room to another room at a distance of about 4 ft. The bill for Rs. 600/- is dated 21-2-1988 and is at Exh. 31. Exh. 3 is the copy of the intimation. III. The complainant alleged that in a bill dated 21-2-1988 he was charged Rs. 600/- for shifting of the telephone from one room to another room at a distance of about 4 ft. The bill for Rs. 600/- is dated 21-2-1988 and is at Exh. 31. Accordingly complainant paid that bill. IV. The complainant alleged that he protested on 4/5-8-1988 and even thereafter, about the wrong billing of Rs. 600/- for shifting charges. According to complainant, he was not liable to pay Rs. 600/- as shifting charges for shifting his telephone in a distance of 4 ft. in his own premises. The shifting of telephone was done by complainant himself and no services of M.T.N.L. were involved in shifting the telephone. The complainant therefore, alleged that charging of Rs. 600/- is not only unreasonable but illegal. The complainant has stated this in the ground in para 10(i) of his complaint. In support of this contention, complainant filed documents at Exhs. 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33. Except Exh. 31 and 32, the rest of documents are the letters addressed by complainant to M.T.N.L. The complainant therefore alleged in this complaint that his allegations were found to be true in this regard because after the filing of this complaint, the M.T.N.L. refunded the amount of Rs. 525/- out of Rs. 600/- and adjusted it in two bills of May and July, 1993 respectively at Exh. 43 and 52. The complainant further stated that this fact is also admitted by the M.T.N.L. in its written version. Thus, according to complainant, his allegations of charging him excessively for shifting of the telephone in the same premises were illegally collected and despite his repeated letters and reminders, no action was taken by M.T.N.L. V. The complainant alleged that he was charged rental for the period which was under break-down. The complainant alleged that he intimated in writing to the O.P. No. 6, who was at the relevant time working as Accounts Officer vide letters between 12th March, 1987 up to 14-5-1992 and they are respectively at Exhs. 2, 4, 12, 13, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 35. The complainant alleged that none of his correspondence was replied by the opposite party. But after the filing of this complaint in November, 1992, he was given rebate of Rs. 2, 4, 12, 13, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 35. The complainant alleged that none of his correspondence was replied by the opposite party. But after the filing of this complaint in November, 1992, he was given rebate of Rs. 63, that too, without specifying any details. VI. Lastly the complainant alleged that for the aforesaid deficiencies, he has personally written letters to opposite party Nos. 2, 3 4 on many occasions but none of them were replied by them. The copies of the letters written by complainant are filed on record at Exhibits mentioned in the preceeding paras. On the aforesaid facts, the complainant alleged that the services of M.T.N.L. were seriously deficient, so far as he is concerned and further alleged that his repeated grievances in writing were not attended to by the opposite parties. The complainant therefore, alleged that M.T.N.L. being a Public Undertaking meant to serve its consumers has totally neglected to attend to the routine requirements and the complaints made by the complainant, as regards charging him rental for the break-down period, collecting from him, unreasonable and illegal shifting charges and threatening him to disconnect his telephone for no reasons. The complainant specifically alleged in para 10(d) of his complaint that he addressed complaints to O.P. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 vide his letters at Exhs. 1, 2, 10, 12, 16, 18 and 21 between the period of 17-2-1990 upto 14-5-1992. According to complainant, the opposite parties did not show him courtesy of replying to his letters but as a result of his complaints, the telephone was made dead for 40 days with mala fide intention. For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant claimed the compensation of Rs. 8,02,434.34 in this complaint. 4. In response to the notice from this commission, under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, the opposite party, filed its written version dated 23-2-1993. The O.P. denied all the allegations except the shifting charges of Rs. 600/-. However, in para No. 11 of their written version, the O.Ps admitted their mistake and submitted that the amount of Rs. 525/- was being refunded, to the complainant. It is also admitted in para 10 of the written version by the opposite parties that the rental rebate has been granted for the break-down period in the bills of the complainant. However, in para No. 11 of their written version, the O.Ps admitted their mistake and submitted that the amount of Rs. 525/- was being refunded, to the complainant. It is also admitted in para 10 of the written version by the opposite parties that the rental rebate has been granted for the break-down period in the bills of the complainant. However, no details are furnished about the adjustment of rental rebate in the bills of the complainant. 5. We have heard Mr. Mokashi, Advocate for complainant and Shri M.R. Gupta, Divisional Engineer, Borivli Telephone Exchange, for M.T.N.L. 6. At the outset, we note with regret, the manner under which the case has been represented by M.T.N.L. We would like to mention that notice under section 13 of the C.P.A. dated 30-11-1992 was issued to opposite parties calling on them to file written version and to attend the hearing of the complaint on 3rd March, 1993. The M.T.N.L. was represented by Ms. Shah, Advocate. The complainant was present in person. A copy of the written version was given to complainant on 3-3-1993, the complaint was then fixed on 11-6-1993 and thereafter, was adjourned to 12-8-1993. It was again adjourned to 2-11-1993. On the aforesaid day, i.e. on 12-11-1993, the complainant was represented by Shri Mokashi, Advocate and Ms. Shah, Advocate represented M.T.N.L. The learned Advocate for complainant stated that he does not want to examine any witness on oath and stated that he relies on the affidavit filed by the complainant. However, Ms. Shah, Advocate stated that she wanted to examine some witnesses on behalf of M.T.N.L. No list of witnesses was submitted by M.T.N.L. This commission therefore, directed the O.P. to keep their witnesses present on the next date i.e. on 4-11-1993. The complaint was adjourned for recording evidence of O.P. and for hearing on 4th February, 1993, at the request of Advocate for M.T.N.L. However, it is surprising that on 4-11-1993, the learned Advocate for M.T.N.L. was absent and Ms. K.S. Shah, Jr. Advocate was present. On behalf of M.T.N.L., Mr. M.R. Gupta, Divisional Engineer, Borivli Telephone Exchange was present. He has stated that none of the witnesses who were to be examined on behalf of M.T.N.L. were present as most of them were either transferred or retired. We waited for the Sr Advocate for M.T.N.L. for hearing of arguments. The Sr. Advocate was present. On behalf of M.T.N.L., Mr. M.R. Gupta, Divisional Engineer, Borivli Telephone Exchange was present. He has stated that none of the witnesses who were to be examined on behalf of M.T.N.L. were present as most of them were either transferred or retired. We waited for the Sr Advocate for M.T.N.L. for hearing of arguments. The Sr. Advocate did not appear and in absence of the Advocate, Mr. M.R. Gupta argued the case on behalf of M.T.N.L. After hearing the arguments of learned Advocate for complainant and M.R. Gupta, we closed this complaint for orders. However, on the aforesaid date, the complainant filed a bound volume of paper book containing all the annexures, alongwith written arguments. The O.P. also filed written arguments. In absence of evidence, we are required to consider the affidavits of both the parties and the documents on record. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the written arguments of both the sides and also have gone through the huge paper book submitted by complainant and the relevant documents. The 2 deficiencies in the services of the O.P. has been not only proved but admitted by the O.Ps in their written version. Although there is a denial on record about the 2 deficiencies but the denial has no meaning. The first admitted deficiency is that M.T.N.L. collected Rs. 600/- illegaly and wrongly towards shifting charges from the complainants in the bill dated 21st February, 1988. The said amount was wrongly collected by M.T.N.L. is an admitted fact stated in the written version. The mistake has been tried to be corrected by the O.P. by adjustment refunding the said amount to the complainant in the bill of May, 1993 and July, 1993 for which Exh. 43 52 respectively are on record. The complainants alleges that he himself shifted his telephone at a distance of 4 ft. in the same house from one room to another room because the ceiling of the 1st room where telephone was installed was falling is not in dispute. The complainant thus was justified in shifting the telephone as a safety precautions. We also find that no service on the part of M.T.N.L. was required to be rendered for the shifting of telephone for which Rs. 600/- were charged for shifting charges. According to complainant, it is not the question of Rs. The complainant thus was justified in shifting the telephone as a safety precautions. We also find that no service on the part of M.T.N.L. was required to be rendered for the shifting of telephone for which Rs. 600/- were charged for shifting charges. According to complainant, it is not the question of Rs. 600/- only but he highlighted this incident to demonstrate the deficiency in the service of O.P. The deficiency is further aggravated due to the fact that the illegal collection of Rs. 600/- were refunded to the complainant after a gap of 5 years in the year 1993 by way of adjustment. In the meantime, the written complaints made by complainant to various officers of the M.T.N.L. were not considered and attended to and thus they were totally irresponsible and callous as regards the grievance of the complainant as a consumer for the illegal and unjustified recovery made by the M.T.N.L. In our view, the aforesaid incident is a glaring instance of deficiency in the service of M.T.N.L. The deficiency is further compounded by the negligence on the part of M.T.N.L. to adjust the illegal recovery after a gap of about 5 years. 8. The 2nd instance of deficiencies is also admitted by the opposite party in their written version. It is about charging complainant rental amount for the period when the telephone was not working. The complainant has made reasonable claim on the basis of documentary evidence that his telephone was dead for a total period of 276 days. This fact is not only admitted by the O.P. but subsequently after the filing of this complaint refunded Rs. 63/- to the complainant. According to complainant, he is entitled to receive Rs. 1188/- at the rate of Rs. 5.50 per day but without specifying the break-up of the refund amount. The M.T.N.L. has refunded only Rs 63/- to the complainant. It is not the question of refund of Rs. 63/- but all the while, despite the repeated complaints made by the complainant, the M.T.N.L. was not responding to his complaint, and kept quiet all the while. Thus we find that the complainant has also proved the 2nd deficiency in the service of M.T.N.L. in not refunding the rental charges within a reasonable period, and took years together to find the time to refund the rental charges. 9. Thus we find that the complainant has also proved the 2nd deficiency in the service of M.T.N.L. in not refunding the rental charges within a reasonable period, and took years together to find the time to refund the rental charges. 9. The 3rd deficiency according to complainant is that whenever he made complaints to the M.T.N.L., the officials did not show the courtesy even to acknowledge his letters, and never replied any of the letters. The complainant has stated in para 10(i)(k) of his complaint that on 14-10-1991, he wrote a letter to General Manager, M.T.N.L. the O.P. No. 3 with a copy to O.P. No. 4 to seek personal interview for representing his grievance about the working of M.T.N.L. The complainant submitted that opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 being responsible officers of M.T.N.L. neither acknowledged the said letter, nor replied to it. The question of personal interview, thus, never materialised although demanded by the complainant for his bona fide and genuine grievances. Thus, the 3rd deficiency in the service of M.T.N.L. is that when the consumer wanted to convey the grievance to the higher officer for redressal, no courtesy is shown to reply to his letters or go give him an interview. In our view the officials of the M.T.N.L. were totally negligent while attending the complaints made by complainant which were proved to be correct and are supported by documentary evidence. Under the circumstances, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainants allegations are correct duly supported by documentary evidence on record. 10. In view of our discussion in the proceeding paras, deficiencies in the service of O.P. are the result of negligence in the administration and we must say that the complainant pursued his grievance with great deal of patience and not getting any response, so far as M.T.N.L. is concerned ultimately approached this Commission for the redressal. The complainant obviously suffered mental tension, harassment financial loss. The complainant had to undertake correspondence for the redressal of grievance, he had to spend in typing postage conveyance to seek the redressal of his genuine and legitimate grievances. It is clear, this is a fit case where the complainant deserves to be compensated for the loss suffered by him in this case. The complainant has claimed Rs. 8 lakhs by way of compensation. Considering the loss of payment of Rs. It is clear, this is a fit case where the complainant deserves to be compensated for the loss suffered by him in this case. The complainant has claimed Rs. 8 lakhs by way of compensation. Considering the loss of payment of Rs. 600/- in the year 1988 towards shifting charges out of which Rs. 525/- were refunded to him and out of Rs. 1188/- towards rental, Rs. 63 were refunded to him. The loss caused to the complainant comes to Rs. 125/- only. In view of the financial involvement of Rs. 125/- a total amount of Rs. 200/- the demand of complainant for the compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs appears to be disproportionate. However, considering the mental tension, sufferings and harassment, we would like to grant the complainant the amount of compensation of Rs. 5000/-. The complainant also claimed Rs. 1512.50 towards refund of rental charges but there is no basis for the refund of the said amount and therefore, in our view, the refund of Rs. 63 made by M.T.N.L. is justified and therefore, the complainants claim for refund of Rs. 1512.50/- is not justified. Similarly, the complainant has claimed the refund of Rs. 600/- out of which Rs. 525/- has been refunded to him and therefore, he is not entitled to refund of Rs. 600/-. However, we would like to grant the complainant, the interest on Rs. 600/- at the rate of 18% p.a. from 21-2-1988 till the refund of Rs. 525/- towards compensation. The other claim of complainant of Rs. 321.84 towards interest and the interest on Rs. 8 lakhs is also rejected, as not justified. However, the complainant has claimed cost. We find that the complainant is justified in claiming the cost. Considering the efforts made by complainant, we would like to grant him Rs. 2,000/- as cost to meet his expenses. 11. This is a peculiar complaint, in which apart from the M.T.N.L., the complainant has impleaded the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7, the officers of the M.T.N.L., against whom, he has labelled specified allegations. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that O.P. Nos. 3, 4 and 6 are personally responsible for causing loss to complainant. On 14-10-1991, the complainant, addressed a complaint to O.P. No. 3 and endorsed a copy to O.P. No. 4 but they have not responded to the complaint. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that O.P. Nos. 3, 4 and 6 are personally responsible for causing loss to complainant. On 14-10-1991, the complainant, addressed a complaint to O.P. No. 3 and endorsed a copy to O.P. No. 4 but they have not responded to the complaint. The complainant, in his complaint has sought to explain the difficulties encountered by him due to the highhanded treatment given to him by the M.T.N.L. and wanted to seek personal interview. The complainant has alleged that O.P. No. 6. Accounts Officer of M.T.N.L. is also personally liable for recovering from him illegally Rs. 600/- towards shifting charges and the rental charges for the period when the telephone was not working. We therefore, find that O.P. Nos. 1, 3, 4 6 are liable to compensate the loss of complainant as ordered by this Commission in this complaint. Hence we pass the following order. Order 12. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party Nos. 1, 3, 4 6 are jointly and severelly liable to pay the complainant Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost. The opposite party also is liable to pay to the complainant interest of Rs. 600/- at the rate of 18% p.a. from 21st February, 1988 till May, 1993. The aforesaid amounts be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order. Complaint allowed.