UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM vs Atul Fasteners Limited

DISTRICT Forum, Ropar on July 22,1997 while allowing the complaint of Atul Fasteners Limited directed the Telephone Department to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith costs of litigation of Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant and further directed Chief General Manager, Telecom, Punjab Circle, Ambala Cantt. to hold enquiry against the defaulting official and to recover the amount as awarded from the monthly salary of such official.

M/s. Atul Fasteners Limited raised a grouse for non-functioning of their three telephone Nos. 670335, 6721156 and 679361. It was claimed that these telephones remained out of order continuous for a period of 13 days resulting in huge loss to the complainant firm. A short reply was filed on behalf of the Telephone Department stating that the telephones aforesaid were promptly attended as soon as complaints were registered. The other allegations of the complainant were denied for want of knowledge. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents. The complainant produced documents including copies of letter making complaints on May 12, 13 and 15, 1997 to the Telephone Department regarding non- functioning of the telephones. He also produced one telephone bill Ex. A-7 to show the quantum of utilization of the telephone connections as the bill was for Rs. 28,854/-. On behalf of the Telephone Department only affidavit of K.R. Choudhary, S.D.O., was produced, who simply stated that the complaints of the aforesaid three telephones of the complainant were promptly attended and there existed a rule for allowing rebate if a telephone remains faulty for about 7 days or more. He further stated that the rent rebate will be granted to the subscriber. Ex. R-2, copy of an extract from Swamy''s Treatise on Telephone Rule was produced. The District Forum accepted the complaint and granted the compensation as referred to above. In appeal copy of fault card of the three telephones of the complainant during the relevant period was produced. At the out-set it may be stated that no cogent ground has been made out for producing additional evidence in appeal. In view of evasive denial in the written statement filed on behalf of the Telephone Department on the pleas taken by the complainant, and that such evidence was available that the Telephone Department could easily produce it before the District Forum, no ground is made out for allowing additional evidence in appeal. Reply was filed by the Telephone Department on July 1, 1997 and finally evidence was concluded by both the parties on July 16, 1997. There was sufficient time for the Telephone Department to produce such evidence, which was in their possession. For producing additional evidence, not only that relevancy of the document sought to be produced is necessary but reasonable cause is also required to be shown. It is not the case that such evidence came to light after the decision of the District Forum. No ground exists in the present case. Even otherwise with respect to one of the telephones as per this fault card the delay was much more. With respect to Telephone No. 670335 the complaint was recorded on May 9, 1997 and the defect was cleared on May 17,1997. Even this fault card is not going to help the Telephone Department. The compensation has been granted keeping in view that about 8 days were taken for removing the defect in the telephones of the complainants.

Learned Counsel for the Telephone Department has argued that the grant of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation is highly excessive and arbitrary and likewise the grant of Rs. 2,500/- costs is arbitrary. There is merit in this contention. When three telephones were available may be on different dates some of them were non- functional, it cannot be held that the complainant suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- for non-functioning of the telephones even if the complainant firm is held to be prosperous industrial unit. When on estimation compensation is required to be fixed under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, it has to be just and reasonable compensation and not arbitrarily excessive. The ends of justice would be met if the compensation is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- and likewise the costs are also reduced to Rs. 1,000/-. The appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified accordingly. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.