Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 69 (UTT)

B. S. N. L. v. Suraj Prakash Bohra

2004-05-21

K.D.SHAHI, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the telephone department against the order dated 7.11.2003 passed by the Learned Forum, Hardwar whereby the complainant was allowed compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a senior citizen. He was having a telephone: His telephone was out of order from the evening of 25.2.2002. On 20.2.2002 as got a com plaint lodged at the telephone excharge. On 5.3.2002, he again made a complaint. His telephone remained out of order from 25.2.2002 to 12.3.2002 and therefore the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) was allowed. 3. The case of the appellant was that whenever there was a complaint, the telephone was corrected but the Learned Forum held that there is no 'evidence that a was corrected. Even otherwise there is no evidence that the complainant had made any calls from 25.2.2002 to 12.3.2002 or here was any meter reading. The meter reading produced before the Learned Forum was not proved. Therefore on evidence, the Learned Forum was perfectly justified in holding that from 25.2.2002 to 12.3.2002, the telephone of the complainant was out of order and the telephone department did not correct it. There is no case of the telephone department that this defect in the telephone was due to any technical reason or act of god or damage in he writ or exchange etc. This could have been corrected and it was not corrected. This is definitely deficiency in service. 4. In the absence of any evidence, we have got no option but to hold that there was deficiency in service of the appellant in not correcting the telephone from 25.2.2002 to 12.3.2002. 5. The amount of compensation as awarded in highly excessive. The compensation must commensurate with expenses. It is fantastic that for this period of 17 days, the complainant could have paid rent and call charges but he wilt get compensation if this facility is not provided as claimed by him to the huge amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand). If he was in urgent need of the telephone, he could have a mobile. There is no case that there was no PCO in his vicinity and there was no other telephone in his house. In case like this compensation of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) is highly adequate. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand). If he was in urgent need of the telephone, he could have a mobile. There is no case that there was no PCO in his vicinity and there was no other telephone in his house. In case like this compensation of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) is highly adequate. As such we reduce the amount of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only). The appeal is disposed off accordingly. ORDER The appeal is hereby partly allowed and partly dismissed. The order under appeal dated 7.11.2003 is hereby modified to the extent that the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) To Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) and the appellant is directed to pay this amount or adjust this in the future bill of the complainant. Cost of this appeal shall be easy.