Back
Officer-in-charge, Kanjarampettai Telephone Exchange, Madurai & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Consumer Right Protection Madurai & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 01/06/1994
A.P. No. 535/93
.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Complainant telephone not working - District Forum holding that complainant not liable to pay rental charges• Opposite party directed to give rebate of Rs.1000/- being rental charges and pay compensation. Appeal filed - Order of District Forum upheld except rental rebate of Rs. 1000/- reduced to Rs. 210/-.
Held: The order of the District Forum directing the opposite party to give a rebate of Rs. 1,000/ - for the rent collected during that period appears to be untenable. This is a rural exchange and the bi-monthly rent is only Rs. 60/- which works out at Rs. 30/- per month. From May to November 1991 for the period of 7 months. The rebate will come only at Rs. 210/-. It is not known how the District Forum has arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,000/-. This amount has therefore to be reduced to Rs. 210/-. In other respects, the order of the District Forum shall stand. (Para 3)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
S.A. Kader, President - The appeal arises out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai dated 24.8.1993 in O.P. 378/92. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The complaint is with reference to the phone No. 24, of Kanjarampettai Exchange installed in the second complainant M/s. Jupiter Textiles, at Chathirapatti. According to the complainants, it has not been working from May 1991 till November 1991 and they are not liable to pay the rental charges during that period. This was disputed by the opposite party. The District Forum held that the phone No. 24 did not function from May 1991 to November 1991 and the complainants are not liable for the rental charges during that period. It therefore directed the opposite parties to give rebate for the sum of Rs. 1,000/being rental charges, pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- for mental pain and agony, and costs of Rs. 150/-. It is this order that is challenged in the appeal.
3. We have gone through the judgment and we find that the District Forum has gone in detail to the facts of the case and has come of the correct conclusion that the phone No. 24 did not function for the period from May 1991 to November 1991. We find no ground to interfere with the said finding. However, the order of the District Forum directing the opposite party to give a rebate of Rs. 1,000/- for the rent collected during that period appears to be untenable. This is a rural exchange and the bi-monthly rent is only Rs. 60/- which works out at Rs. 30/- per month. From May to November 1991 for the period of 7 months, the rebate will come only at Rs. 210/-. It is not known how the District Forum has arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,000/-. This amount has therefore to be reduced to Rs. 210/-. In other respects, the order of the District Forum shall stand.
4. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, the rental rebate of Rs. 1,000/- ordered by the District Forum is reduced to Rs. 210/- in other respects, the order of the District Forum shall stand. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal partly allowed.
