Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 109 (UTT)

Union of India v. K. L. Gupta

2003-07-28

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2001 passed by District Forum, Haridwar for the deficiency in service of the Telephone Department. 2. The judgment of the learned Forum is in detail. We need not to repeat the facts but it is apparent that the Telephone of the complainant was not properly working from January 1999 to March 1999. He made a complaint. It was not corrected. Then, he filed the case before the learned Forum. It was argued that as a matter of retaliation, the phone of the complainant was, again not working from 28.09.1999 to 12.10.1999 and again, on complaint, it was not properly corrected. 3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in its judgment, the learned Forum have not considered the case of January 1999 to March 1999, but, has allowed a compensation because from 28.09.1999 to 12.10.1999 as well, the telephone was out of order. There was complaint on 28.09.1999 and 30.09.1999. A registered letter was sent on 05.10.1991, then on 12.10.1999 the telephone was brought into working condition. 4. It is true to some extent. The complaint has been filed only for the period 'of January 1999 to March 1999. Therefore, it was argued that the cause of action for the subsequent period is a different cause of action for different complaints, but the learned Forum has considered this fact as well. It is true from the bare reading of the complaint that this is only for January 1999 to March 1999 and from the bare reading of the judgment, it is also clear that the learned Forum was prejudiced for the subsequent acts as well as has •been enumerated at page 2 of the judgment. 5. However, the allegation of not properly working of the telephone in the month of January 1999 to March 1999 is proved and is also discussed in the body of the judgment. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned Forum has taken absolutely new cause of action although it is also correct that the subsequent cause of action has also prejudiced the mind of the learned Fourm. 6. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned Forum has taken absolutely new cause of action although it is also correct that the subsequent cause of action has also prejudiced the mind of the learned Fourm. 6. Since, the deficiency in service of the appellant is proved from the records, at least, for not properly attending the complainant for the fault from January 1999 to March 1999, therefore, he must get compensation for the harassment and loss for that period. It was argued by the learned counsel for the Telephone Department that the complainant has pleaded that he has suffered business loss. The complainant is a lawyer. The working of a lawyer is not a business, but that is only a profession. Secondly, it has not been done for any business purposes, but, it is self-employment for his livelihood and the family. The profession of a lawyer cannot be said to be a commercial transaction. 7. However, in the circumstances of the case, since the learned Forum has also considered the harassment of the subsequent period, it is proper that the compensation should be reduced to half. Besides, the cost as awarded, ars0 appears to be excessive because the complainant, himself, is a lawyer. The case was filed locally. No expenses of Rs. 15001- is expected in such a litigation. There is nothing to be paid to a lawyer and also in the form of court fee. In these circumstances, the cost of litigation should also be reduced to the half. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. The judgment and order of the District Forum, Haridwar dated 06.01.2001 is modified to the extent that the complainant will get a compensation of Rs. 1250/- and cost of 'litigation of Rs. 750/- only For the rest of the reliefs, the complaint stands dismissed. The compensation should be paid within two months from today, otherwise, the appellant will have to pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount after expiry of two months till the date of actual payment. Cost of this appeal shall be easy.