MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs Z.S.KHER

THE respondent, who was complainant before the District Forum, claimed compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- on account of OPs failure to keep his telephone in working order from mid July to mid September ''93. His case was that he is retired Addl. Chief Engineer practicing as a Consultant Engineer and as a Member of the Indian Council of Arbitration. He had suffered considerable loss in his consultancy business as his clients could not contact him during the aforesaid period as the telephone was not working. THE plea of the O.P. was one of denial. It was, however, admitted that a complaint was filed by the complainant on 3.9.93 when it was discovered that there was a break-down in cable and the telephone was set right on 17.3.93.

ON a consideration of the affidavits and other material on record the District Forum held that the telephone remained out of order from mid July to mid Sept. ''93. It was further held that it had not been shown by the O.P. that the fault occurred due to break-down of the cable. It was also observed that inspite of repeated complaints made by the complainant the telephone was not attended to for an unreasonably long period. Loss in the professional income which the complainant is alleged to have suffered was not accepted by the District Forum for want of adequate supporting material. However, it was held that the complainant did suffer mental agony on account of the telephone remaining out of order and being un-attended by the department for corrective action and therefore directed compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to be given to the complainant. The complainant appears to have accepted the order as he has preferred no appeal against the order. The present appeal has been filed by the O.P.-MTNL. The main contention of Mr. S. Pattjoshi, the learned Counsel for the appellant is that certain principles have been laid-down by the National Commission for determining the loss suffered on account of deficiency in service. If those principles had been applied the amount of compensation could not be determined at Rs.10,000/-. The respondent, however, contended that he had placed on record affidavits of his clients in which negotiations for engaging him as a Consultant were at an advanced stage and the deal would have been clinched but for the fact that the client could not contact him as the telephone was out of order.

We have carefully considered the respective submissions. It is not disputed that the meter reading was taken from the telephone exchange every fortnight. During the period 1.8.93 to 15.8.93 the number of calls recorded was Nil. In the following fortnight from 16.8.93 to 31.8.93 the number was only six. It has been rightly pointed out by the D.F. that inspite of a number of complaints the telephone was not set-right.

AT the same time we also find that the D.F. has not accepted compensation on the ground of loss of business for purposes of awarding compensation. It was vehemently contended by the respondent that he lost a very remunerative deal as a Consulting Engineer only because his telephone was out of order. In support he placed reliance on the affidavits of clients filed by him. This plea was not accepted by the D.F. We are also unable to accept it. Various printed letterheads on record show that more than one telephone were installed at the residence as well as office of the respondent. Even if, it is assumed that except the telephone in question the other telephones were not working during the relevant period, we are unable to accept the suggestions that the deal fell through only because the residential telephone of the respondent was lying dead. If the negotiations for a consultancy deal was at an advanced stage and the telephone was lying dead with no prospect of its being set-right, one would expect the respondent to inform his client that he could be contacted on another telephone, say, of his friend or relation. We find it impossible to accept that the deal failed to clinch only because the telephone was not working and the other party could not contact the respondent. Having given our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case, in our view, it would meet the ends of justice if the amount is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. We order accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in these terms. Parties be informed. Appeal disposed of.