- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 26.8.2010 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing the consumer complaint No. 78 of 2007 and directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 2,444 along with litigation expenses of Rs. 500.
(2.) THE consumer complaint filed by Sh. Rajender Singh Bajwa before the District Forum pertains to deficiency in service made by the opposite parties in respect of an Airtel connection given to the complainant on 20.4.2005. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 2,444 in advance under a special tariff plan in which he was entitled for free calls upto Rs. 150 per month for a period of one year. This amount was paid by the complainant on 14.4.2005 through a cheque. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties did not inform him regarding the activation of the SIM. It was only when he switched on his mobile on 20.4.2005 that he could know that the SIM had been activated. However, instead of the mobile number he had requested for, he was allotted a different mobile number. It is also alleged that the outgoing calls were barred and that in contrary to the terms and conditions of the tariff plan he had opted and inspite of depositing sum of Rs. 2,444 in advance under the said plan, the opposite parties issued a bill dated 21.4.2005 for sum of Rs. 2,493. The bill did not show that an amount of Rs. 2,444 was deposited by the complainant in advance. When the opposite parties did not respond to the enquiries and requests made by the complainant in this regard, the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint in the above terms. However, the complainant felt that he has not been compensated for the mental agony he had suffered, hence he filed this appeal.
(3.) WE have heard the appellant -complainant in person and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In its order dated 20.4.2011, this Commission has observed that the main contest is between the appellant and the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, we are proceeding to decide this appeal in spite of the fact that the notices sent to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not be delivered by the postal department and returned the envelopes with the remark that their addresses have changed. We considered the submissions raised by the appellant and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. The allegations made by the appellant against the respondents have been found as well proved by the District Forum. The respondents have not challenged the impugned order. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 pleaded that it is not necessary that the compensation should be awarded separately. If the District Forum awards interest on the principal amount in dispute and / or cost of litigation, then it should be deemed that the complainant has also been awarded compensation for any loss or agony suffered by him. In this case, the District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs. 500 towards cost of litigation and, therefore, it cannot be said that the District Forum has not awarded any compensation. According to the learned Counsel, this compensation is quite adequate and reasonable keeping in view the principal amount of Rs. 2,444. We do not find these pleadings tenable because the interest awarded by the Consumer Fora may be treated as compensation but the cost of litigation cannot be termed as compensation for mental or physical agony suffered by the complainant. Further, whether the principal amount is small or big, the cost of litigation will be almost the same. Generally, the cost of litigation is assessed at Rs. 1,000 and, thus, the amount awarded towards the cost of litigation cannot be said to be reasonable and it needs to be enhanced. Similarly, the facts of the case clearly reveal the harassment faced by the appellant and inaction on the part of the respondents in respect of his complaint. All the allegations made by the complainant against the respondents were found true. In such a case, the appellant - complainant is entitled to get a compensation for mental agony he had suffered. In the appeal, the appellant has prayed for interest on the principal amount @ 18% p.a. from 14.4.2005 to 14.9.2010 along with damages and exemplary cost. We think that if an interest @ 7% p.a. from 18.4.2005, when the cheque dated 14.4.2005 was encashed and advance money of Rs. 2,444 was deposited, till the date of actual payment, i.e., 14.9.2010 is awarded, then that would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is to be modified to that extent.;