Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President; Smt. A.S. Vijayakar, Member;
Dr. A.K. Ghosh, Member; Mr. Y. Krishan, Member; Dr. Rais Ahmed, Member
UNION OF INDIA––Appellant
versus
DR. (MRS.) SATYA BHAMA THAKUR––Respondent
First Appeal No. 14 of 1989—Decided on 15.12.1989
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Dalip Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rakesh Luthra, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Telephone Department's deficiency in service can lead to compensation for mental injury and loss of professional practice under the relevant consumer protection laws.
Headnote:
Telephone Disconnection - Deficiency in Service - [Telecommunication, Consumer Rights, Compensation] - [Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 - Section 14(1)(b), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 14(1)(d)] - The court discussed the deficiency in service by the Telephone Department, the inflated bills, and the mental agony caused to the consumer. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 14(1)(b) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, which deals with the functions of the Authority to protect the interests of consumers, and Section 2(1)(g) and Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which define 'deficiency in service' and provide for compensation for loss or injury caused by deficiency in service.
Fact of the Case:
The telephone of the Respondent was disconnected for non-payment of bills, and the Telephone Department allotted the disconnected telephone to another subscriber. The State Commission found that the disconnection was justified but awarded compensation for mental injury and loss of professional practice caused by the deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the functioning of the Telephone Department was unsatisfactory, the services rendered to the subscribers were deficient, and the manner in which it dealt with complaints was inadequate. It also found that the disconnection was justified but awarded reduced compensation for mental injury.
Issues: The issues involved the deficiency in service by the Telephone Department, the inflated bills, and the mental agony caused to the consumer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Telephone Department's functioning was unsatisfactory and awarded compensation for mental injury and loss of professional practice caused by the deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the compensation for mental injury was reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 200.
Y. Krishan, Member—The Commission accepted the Miscellaneous Petition and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. There was no need to grant ex-parte stay as the appeal was taken up for disposal at the hearing. Brief facts of the case in appeal are that the telephone of the Respondent before us was disconnected between 1st and 2nd August, 1988 for non-payment of two telephone bills, one dated the 1st of November, 1987 and the second dated the 1st of May, 1988. After the expiry of three months, the Telephone Department allotted the disconnected telephone to another subscriber. The telephone was restored to the appellant on 13th January, 1989 on payment of above mentioned bills and reconnection and other charges. The Respondent herein had complained before the State Commission that the telephone services were deficient “in the quality, nature and manner of performance”; that she had received inflated bills first dated 1st of September, 1986 and also subsequently.
2. But the appellant herein, without proper examination, refused to grant her any relief; and that she received a bill for local telephone calls even after the telephone had been disconnected.
3. The appellant maintained that the disconnection of telephone was on account of default in payment of the bills and that mater had been checked and found to be correct and therefore, the bills were not inflated and no relief could be granted to the Respondent here and the Complainant before the State Commission.
4. The State Commission after elaborate examination held that the Respondent Complainant did not have a genuine grievance about the disconnection of the telephone as the disconnection was because of non-payment of the bills of November, 1987 and May, 1988. There was no allegation that these bills had been inflated. The State Commission, however, analysed the meter readings for the telephone number concerned for the period from 1985 to July, 1988 and found that the meter reading for the fortnight ending 1st August, 1986 was 4674 whereas the maximum reading in any other fortnight did not exceed 2129 (fortnight ending 1st September, 1987). Further, the meter had also recorded substantial number (938) of calls from the period from 1st of August to 31st November, 1988 was as high as 465 and all this when the telephone was supposed to have been disconnected. In fact, a bill for Rs. 245 was sent to the Respondent for the post-disconnection period, though the same was scored out. These facts are indicative of the fact that the telephone system and organisation was not functioning properly and that the metering equipment and its testing were not dependable.
5. The State Commission while finding that the disconnection of the telephone was not unjustified, held that “the prolonged correspondence in respect of the inflated bill dated 1st September, 1986, the subsequent disconnection, and more specifically the allotment of the telephone number to another subscriber in December, 1988, must have caused mental agony, and harassment to the Complainant and would have also adversely affected her professional practice” and thereby caused loss in the professional practice and mental agony. On these grounds, the Commission, therefore, directed that the account of the inflated bill of 1.9.1986 should be refunded or adjusted against subsequent bills and that she be given a token amount of Rs. 1,000/- for the loss in professional practice and a token amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the mental injury caused to the Complainant (Respondent here) because of the acts of the omissions and Commissions of the appellant.
6. This Commission, after pursuing the record and hearing the parties has come to the following finding:-
(i) it has been established that the bill of 1.9.1986 was inflated and the department now is ready to refund or adjust the amount;
(ii) the department has no explanation for the fact that the meter showed readings of calls after the telephone had been disconnected and r
