M.T.N.L. vs SUSHMA CHAUFLA

THE complainant Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Chaufla is a practising medical doctor. She was compelled to approach District Forum-II with two grievances firstly, that her telephone became dead on 16.7.1994. She lodged complaints from 16.7.1994 onwards every day but the telephone was setright only on 26.8.1994. She also wrote a letter in this connection on 22.8.1994. Her second grievance was that on 23.9.1994, she requested the opposite party, MTNL, to give her rental rebate from 16.7.1994 to 25.8.1994, the period during which the telephone remained dead. THE opposite party did not accede to the request as indicated by the bill in which no rebate was given. THE complainant again took up the matter and she was informed that the opposite party had granted rebate in rental from 21.7.1994 to 6.9.1994. She was at a loss to understand why rental rebate for the entire period from 16.7.1994 to 25.8.1994 had not been given.

THE case was contested. On a consideration of the matter the District Forum found merit in the complaint and, accordingly held that the opposite party was deficient in service and granted Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and also directed that enquiry be held to fix responsibility and the amount awarded as damages be recovered from the official found responsible. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has filed this appeal. We have heard Mr. S. Pattjoshi, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. D.D. Chaufla, Advocate for the respondent.

Mr. Pattjoshi has raised two contentions for our consideration. His first contention is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear possible to fix responsibility and recover the amount from the official concerned and a direction to this effect given by the District Forum should be set aside. His second contention is that the amount awarded as compensation is not justified as no material has been placed on record to show in what manner the respondent suffered financial loss on account of delay in setting right the telephone.

AFTER hearing both learned Counsel and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we accept the contention first abovementioned and set aside the direction to recover the amount from the official after fixing responsibility. With regard to the amount of compensation we find that the same has been allowed after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the complainant was a medical practitioner and the importance of a telephone both from the point of view of the doctor as well as the patients cannot be adequately emphasised. The period during which the telephone remained dead was considerable and speaks for itself. For these reasons, we partly allow the appeal and while setting aside direction to hold an enquiry and recover the amount from the person found responsible but we affirm the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum. The appeal is disposed of in these terms. A copy of the order be conveyed to the parries as well as District Forum-II. Appeal partly allowed.