MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs NARENDER KUMAR ROHTAGI

THIS appeal has been filed by the Mahanager Telephone Nigam Limited (M.T.N.L.) against the order of the District Forum No. 1 dated 14th December, 1992 granting Rs. 1200/- on account of compensation and Rs. 300/- on account of costs and conveyance charges, to the complainant.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant is a subscriber of Telephone No. 2916957, which was disconnected by the respondent on 6th Feb. ''92 on the ground that the amount of Rs. 5,092/- in respect of the bill relating to December, 1991 had not been deposited by him. It is alleged by the complainant that he went from pillar to post to inform the opposite-parties that he had paid the bill pertaining to December,'' 91 much before the due date. Inspite of that, his telephone was not restored till 10th Feb., 1992. Again, the telephone was disconnected on 6th July, 1992 for the same reason namely non-payment of bill for the month of December, 91. However, it was later restored on 7th July, 1992. Consequently, he filed a complaint. In reply, the facts of the case have not been denied by the respondent. In view of the aforesaid circumstance the District Forum awarded Rs.1200/- .as compensation and Rs. 300/- on account of costs and conveyance charges, to the complainant. M.T.N.L. has come up in appeal to this Commission.

The learned Counsel for the appellant had argued before us at the time of admission that the conveyance charges should not have been granted to the complainant. Consequently, we issued notice to the complainant-respondent, only regarding conveyance charges. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and the respondent in person. Mr. Patt Joshi has vehemently argued that no charges for conveyance should have been awarded to the complainant to contest the litigation by the District Forum. Mr. N.K. Rohtagi has submitted that he had to visit various places to get his telephone restored. In going from place to place, he had to incur lot of expense on conveyance, which had been given by the District Forum alongwith the cost of litigation. The explanation given by the respondent appears to be plausible. However, it would have been proper for the District Forum, if the conveyance charges had been included in the amount of damages. If the amount of conveyance charges is subtracted from the cost, the litigation cost awarded comes to less than Rs. 300.00 which in our view is on the lower side. In the aforesaid circumstances we treat the amount of Rs. 300.00 towards the cost of litigation only. For the aforesaid reasons we modify the order of the District Forum accordingly. No order as to costs in the appeal. Order modified.