TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER SANGRUR Vs. NIRANJAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties before the District Forum have filed this appeal against the order dated August 17, 1991, passed by the District Forum, Sangrur, in complaint case No.35 of 1991, by which it was directed to pay the amount of Rs.500/- to the complainant as compensation. The appellant was further directed to pay Rs.110/- as litigation expenses and to pay simple interest on the security deposit of Rs.800/- @ 10% per annum from the date of the installation of the telephone connection till the date of the impugned order.

(2.) It is not necessary to give detailed resume of facts leading to this appeal for we are concerned with the award of compensation only. The complainant was a subscriber of telephone No.3249. It was alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties-appellants had illegally disconnected his telephone on two occasions despite the fact that the amounts of the bills stood deposited by him in the office of the opposite parties though later on the connection of his telephone was restored. It was alleged that when the complainant showed the receipts regarding the payment of the bills to the Accounts Officer, he misbehaved with him. Because of the disconnection of the telephone the complainant claimed to have suffered inconvenience and mental agony and therefore, he claimed damages amounting to Rs.5,000/- besides litigation expenses and interest on the amount of security deposited by him. The opposite parties resisted the complaint. The District Forum came to the conclusion that on account of undesirable attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant was deprived of the telephone facility for some days and all this resulted in inconvenience and mental agony to him. It, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by him on account of the negligence of the opposite parties and also awarded him the other reliefs as indicated above. Aggrieved, the opposite parties have filed this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Kulwinder Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate his claim for compensation as no material was placed on record by him that he suffered inconvenience on account of the disconnection of his telephone. In the absence of any material regarding injury or loss, submitted the learned Counsel for the opposite parties-appellant, that the award of compensation under Sec.14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act') was wholly unjustified. Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously opposed it