TELECOM, CHINGLEPUT vs N. NAGARAJAN

THE 1st opposite party in O.P. No. 884/2000 on the file of District Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. THE case of the complainant was as follows: He had complained that there was a lightening call booked from his telephone line to opposite party No. 2 which he had actually not made and requested the opposite party No. 1 to investigate and give proper remedy. Opposite party No. 1 though advised the complainant to remit the amount to avoid disconnection failed to investigate and give relief to the complainant. In these circumstanes, the complaint came to be filed before the District Forum claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000 for deficiency in service. It is seen that the opposite party 1 did not appear on receipt of notice, he was set ex parte. While the complaint was pending for proof affidavit and documents. THE 1st opposite party filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order on 4.12.2001. A conditional order came to be passed and the condition had to be complied with before 21.8.2002. However, the condition was not complied with in time. It is claimed on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 that towards cost money order was sent on 20.8.2002. But it had not reached the complainant. On behalf of the complainant, an endorsement was also made to that effect on 21.8.2002. In those circumstances, the District Forum dismissed the application filed by opposite party 1 for setting aside the ex parte order. THEreafter, the District Forum found on the basis of the documents filed by the complainant that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party and the order dated 22.8.2002 directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards compensation and Rs. 1,000 towards cost. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed by opposite party 1.

THE learned Counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that the District Forum had placed absolute reliance on the complainant's proof affidavit and the documents filed by him and ordered the complaint that the order for payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000 was excessive and the District Forum erroneously concluded that the opposite party 1 was negligent in not complying with the conditional order resulting in such an award. We have gone through the materials on record, we are satisfied that the 1st opposite party had been negligent and the District Forum had rightly found that the complainant had to be compensated. However, with regard to the quantum, we are of the view, that it is on the high side.

Consequently, while confirming the order of the District Forum with regard to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party 1, we reduce the compensation amount from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000. The appeal shall stand partly allowed as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.