Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 53 (UTT)

DOOR SANCHAR VIBHAG v. BALBEER SINGH

2005-02-24

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2005
ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an appeal against the order dated 16.11.2004 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed. 2. The complainant had a telephone connection. As stated by him he had got no STD facility. His bills used to range between Rs. 200,500/- but he has been issued bills for Rs. 5,002/-, 4,855/-, 10,774/- etc. When he made the complaint, it was admitted that due to technical defects, these bills were issued but still the bills were not corrected but his telephone was disconnected and RC was issued to the Tehsil for the recovery of the amount and arrest of the complainant. 3. The telephone department in its written statement admitted the telephone connection but has alleged that the telephone of the complainant was with STD facility. In Para 8 of the written statement it has been admitted that on the complaint of the complainant, there has been an order that there is technical defect and ordinary bill should be issued to him but since the complainant did not take effective action, therefore, no further action was taken by the telephone department. The disconnection of the telephone on 23.11.1998 is admitted. It is alleged in Para 10 that to ventilate his grievances, it was the duty of the complainant to have appeared before the higher authorities and to have taken effective proceedings. The issue of RC etc. is also admitted. It is alleged in Para 15 that after the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, it was the duty of the complainant to have appeared before the Accounts Officer and General Manager to have pleaded his case but since he did not take any effective action, therefore, no order was passed by the telephone department. 4. The complainant has very specifically written in his complaint that he has got no STD facility. The bills filed by the complainant also do not show that there was any STD facility with the complainant or not? The details of STD have not been given. The learned Forum found that the telephone department has admitted the defects, therefore, there is deficiency in service of the telephone department. We also cannot appreciate the pleadings and the case of the telephone department that after complaint, the complainant should have appeared before the higher authorities and should have taken effective action. The learned Forum found that the telephone department has admitted the defects, therefore, there is deficiency in service of the telephone department. We also cannot appreciate the pleadings and the case of the telephone department that after complaint, the complainant should have appeared before the higher authorities and should have taken effective action. What does this effective action mean has not been clarified anywhere. The complainant has nothing to do with the telephone authorities except being present there and when the defect was found by the telephone department out of its own, they should have definitely corrected the bills. 5. The learned Forum has directed the telephone department for the correction of the bills and to adjust the amount paid by the complainant. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Manoj Kohli argued that he has got no objection in that. As regards the question of cost, the telephone of the complainant has been unnecessarily disconnected, his bills have not been corrected, his complaint was not properly decided, therefore, while allowing the complaint if the learned Forum awarded a cost of Rs. 2,000/-, that cannot be said to be illegal or excessive. Regarding the award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/-, the learned Counsel for the appellant emphasized that the complainant has nowhere claimed in his complaint regarding any compensation. He has not alleged any mental or physical agony and he argued that under the provisions of the Act, if no compensation is alleged or asked for, it should not have been allowed. Even otherwise under Section 14(d) of the Act, it is specifically provided that the District Forum shall order to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. It was argued that the complainant has not alleged anywhere that he has suffered any loss or injury due to the negligence of the opposite party, therefore, there is no question of any compensation to him, the deficiency in service has already been directed to be cured. Therefore, there is no question of any compensation. We fully agree with this argument. Compensation has neither been claimed, nor any mental or physical pain, agony or sufferance has been alleged, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. The order of payment of compensation of Rs. Therefore, there is no question of any compensation. We fully agree with this argument. Compensation has neither been claimed, nor any mental or physical pain, agony or sufferance has been alleged, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. The order of payment of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is, therefore, to be quashed. ORDER The appeal is hereby partly allowed and partly dismissed. The order of payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation is hereby quashed. Rest part of the order passed by the learned Forum is upheld and is hereby confirmed. The telephone department is directed to comply the order of the learned Forum as early as possible. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal partly allowed.