w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Chief General Manager, Calcutta Telephones v/s International Packers & Movers

Company & Directors' Information:- L C PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25202DL2012PTC241798

Company & Directors' Information:- MOVERS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U60100DL1999PTC102719

Company & Directors' Information:- K M D PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74950DL2000PTC104742

Company & Directors' Information:- PACKERS INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U99999MH1985PTC038391

Company & Directors' Information:- Q E D PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74950DL2001PTC110725

Company & Directors' Information:- S S A S PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21029WB2012PTC179508

Company & Directors' Information:- PACKERS AND MOVERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60231PN2000PTC015145

Company & Directors' Information:- MOVERS-N-PACKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60231PN2000PTC015146

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36991UP1995PTC018211

Company & Directors' Information:- PACKERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U14102KA1999PTC024636

Company & Directors' Information:- PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21010MH1968PTC014058

Company & Directors' Information:- K B S PACKERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999UP1972PTC003540

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090UP2011PTC047868

Company & Directors' Information:- S H K PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21000HP2013PTC000458

    S.C. Case No. 805-A of 1993

    Decided On, 08 October 1993

    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata

    By, MEMBER

    For the Appearing Parties: -------

Judgment Text

Jyotirmoyee Nag, President:

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order so passed by the learned Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in C.D.F. Case No. 2290 of 1991.

2. The respondent-petitioner filed the C.D.F. Case No. 2290 of 1991 for (1) restoration of telephone being No. 440117, (2) removal of the PBX Board from the respondent’s premises and also for cancellation of bill dated. 13.4.89 and other reliefs.

3. In the appeal the appellant argued mainly on two points (1) that the letter written by the respondent dated 26.12.87 was not been addressed to proper person and, as such, it could not be said that in spite of the notice the telephone authority did not act properly for removal of the said PBX Board and the bill dated. 13.4.89 received by the respondent from the appellant for arrear charges of PBX board for the period 1.12.87 to 30.11.89 was not made on whimsical or arbitrary in manner and, as such, the respondent is bound to pay the said amount. The appellant also raised a question that although the compensation for harassment was not prayed for by the respondent still the learned Calcutta District Forum granted Rs. 15,000/- as compensatory costs against the appellant.

4. From the paper placed before us it is apparent that the respondent herein duly sent letter addressed to Section Supervisor, Control Building, Calcutta Telephone dtd. 26.12.87 and the same was duly received by the appellant Telephone Department. Subsequent to that the respondent also sent several letters and made complaints asking the telephone authority for removal of the PBX Board and for restoration of telephone No. 440117 to which the Telephone Department had not paid any heed to the same which clearly shows their gross deficiency in service and for the period in which the PBX Board was not in operation how could they send the bill ?

5. Thus the learned Calcutta District Forum was justified in passing the order dtd. 14.5.93 directing the appellant to remove the PBX Board and to restore the telephone of the respondentwith the observation that the appellant shall not charge any money as claimed for the PBX Board i.e. the bill dtd. 13.4.89 for Rs. 9600/- The learned Calcutta District Forum also directed the appellant to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to the respondent.

6. The learned Advocate of the appellant argued that although there is no prayer of the respondent regarding the claim of cost of harassment still the learned Calcutta District Forum granted the same as if it is a prize money. It is settled law that a Court or Tribunal or a quasi judicial body which is dealing with the matter in controversy for the sake of interest of justice can pass appropriate order for the relief and redress of the complainant. Here it appears that in spite of due intimation the telephone department was silent for more than two years and subsquently one fine morning they became active to claim Rs. 9600/- from the respondent for the no fault of him. Thus the harassment caused to the respondent for such whimsical action of the telephone department, is not only painful but also a clear case of negligence in duty and, as such, the compensation for the harassment so given by the learned Calcutta District Forum was just and proper.

7. In view of such circumstances we hereby dismiss the appeal so preferred

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

by the appellant and direct the appellant to restore the telephone connection of the respondent within seven days from the receipt of this order with further direction to pay Rs. 501/- as cost of the proceeding. In case the appellant fails to comply to restore the telephone line of the respondent within the stipulated time the respondent is at liberty to take steps according to law.