State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rameshwar Sharma vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd on 22 March, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 22-03-2007 Appeal No. FA-260/2003 (Arising from the order dated 25-05-2001 passed by District Forum(North East), Nand Nagari, Delhi in Complaint Case No.422/1999) Shri Rameshwar Sharma, Appellant Deed Writer, In person. S/o Shri A.S. Sharma, Chamber/Seat No. 3-A, (3rd Chamber in 1st row0, S.D.M. Court Compound, Seelampur, Delhi-110053. Versus Chairman, Respondent No.1 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. through Jeevan Bharti Building Mr. Shadat Ahmed, Janpath, New Delhi. Advocate. 2. The Chief Accounts Officer Respondent No.2 Telephone Exchange, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095. (At present at Hardev Puri, Delhi-110095.) CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Vide order dated 25-05-2001 passed by the District Forum the complaint of the respondent against the respondent was allowed with the following directions:-
We therefore, issue the following directions to the respondents:-
(i) To give rental rebate for a period of three months which shall be adjusted against future bills.
(ii) To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for loss of business, harassment and mental agony.
(iii) To pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation.
(iv) To ensure proper service of the telephone.
2. The aforesaid order was not complied with by the respondent. The appellant filed execution petition.
3. Vide impugned order dated 04-02-2003 the execution petition was dismissed on the plea of the respondent that there were three bills, dated 16-01-2000 for Rs. 1,699/-, dated 09-02-2000 for Rs. 579/- and dated 09-04-2000 for Rs. 6,253/-, pending till the date of disconnection.
4. It appears that the District Forum has not taken the pleas of the appellant as well as the order dated 25-05-2001 in the correct perspective. The telephone connection was disconnected on 25-05-1999 and was never restored. Therefore at the most the bill which was payable was bill dated 16-01-2000. It is not understandable as to how the bill for the month of April 2001 to the tune of Rs. 6.253/- was raised whereas in the past such a huge bill was never raised against the appellant and that too when the telephone was not functional and connection was already disconnected.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we allow the appeal in the following terms:-
(i) That the respondent shall adjust the amount of Rs. 1,699/- towards the rental rebate for the period of three months and the amount of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 500/- as cost of the litigation shall be paid to the appellant, if already not paid, within one month as remaining two bills were not leviable because of the telephone having been disconnected and never restored.
(ii) Since the counsel for the respondent states that compensation and cost had already paid, the respondent is at the most liable to recover only telephone bill of Rs. 1,699 dated 09-01-2000 less three months rental rebate.
6. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
7. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
8. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
9. Announced on the 21st March, 2007 (Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj