ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This Appeal arises out of the order passed by the State Commission
directing the appellant before us to pay Rs. 1 lakh as damages to the
Complainant.
2.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the Complainant, who is a
grains-trader had a telephone connection both at his place of business and
residence, which remained out of the order occasionally, effecting
adversely his business. His regular complaints to the Department also did
not yield the desired results. As a last resort he moved the State
Commission praying for award of Rs. 2,25,000/- as damages. The State
Commission vide its very short order directed the Appellant to pay Rs. 1
lakh as damages against which this appeal has been filed.
3.
It was argued by the Id. Counsel for the Appellant, Shri S.S.
Sabharwal that order is entirely arbitrary. Whenever there was a complaint
about the telephone, it was attended to with dispatch. Award of damages
of Rs. 1 lakh was entirely arbitrary. There is no proof or any evidence in
support of the claim of damages, nor has this been discussed in the Order,
hence the order needs to be set aside. The Respondent made a request,
through someone for adjournment. We see from record that the matter
was adjourned earlier also, in October, 2001 on the request of the
appellant. The request for adjournment is declined, hence proceeded ex-parte against the Respondent.
4.
On perusal of the material on record, we find that there is no doubt
that the telephone of the Complainant went out of order several times in
1991. There was also the question of disputed telephone bills. In the
order passed by the State Commission, we see no reference to the version
of the appellant even when, as per record before us, the Appellant’s had
filed a written version. We also do not see from the order as to which
parties was present at the time of arguments. The order prime-facie is too
one sided. We also see that no ground for award of Rs. 1 lakh has been
discussed in the order. It appears to be purely on ad-hoc approach. We
also see on record that the Complainant did have frequent complaints
about the telephone but each time, it was restored albeit after some delay.
Even in these circumstances, we are unable to sustain the order of the
State Commission awarding Rs. 1 lakh as damages without discussing the
grounds for such an award, hence set aside. No details of the loss claimed
are available in the complaint filed by the Complainant, we are in no
position to support the claim of any damages to the complainant. At the
same time we also see that the Appellants have been deficient in
rendering services to the complainant which is writ large as per record filed
before us by the appellant. The appellants are directed to pay costs of
Rs. 15000/- for forcing the complainant to take the help of the
courts/litigation to highlight his grievance about deficiency in service on the
part of the appellant. First Appeal is disposed of.