National Consumer Disputes Redressal
K.C. Jaiswal vs Telecom District Engineer on 19 April, 2002
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. By this order we will decide two applications seeking restoration of two different revision petitions. Only common thing is the counsel, in one revision petition he is the petitioner himself (revision petition No. 1073/98) and the other he is counsel for the petitioner (revision petition No. 1079/99).
Revision Petition No. 1073/98
2. This revision petition pertains to excess telephone billing of the petitioner-complainant. Though he succeeded before the District Forum in the complaint filed by him to some extent, in the appeal filed by the opposite party before the State Commission, the order of the District Forum was set aside. As a matter of fact petitioner also filed appeal for enhancement which was also dismissed. State Commission found that there was no excessive telephone bills and that petitioner already approached the Telephone Adalat which held that the bills were not excessive. It was also found that the petitioner went to the Accounts Officer of the Telephone Department and the matter was discussed with him. Petitioner was also allowed four equal monthly instalments. All these facts petitioner did disclose in his complaint. State Commission also on facts found that it could not be held that the bills were in any way excessive.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission petitioner filed revision petition before this Commission. He was given notice of the hearing for 4.12.2000 when a telegraph was received from him and the case was adjourned. Again notice was sent to him by registered post but he failed to appear on the date fixed when the petition was dismissed in default. In his application for restoration it was not denied that notice sent by registered post was not received by him. The only plea taken by him is that he did not receive the information. It is not disputed that the notice was sent to his correct address. We do not find it is a fit case to allow such type of application. The application for restoration is dismissed. Even otherwise, we do not find it is a fit case to exercise on jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Revision Petition No. 1079/99
4. Petitioner was complainant before the District Forum. He filed complaint alleging medical negligence against the opposite parties being the Nursing Home and attending doctor. Both the District Forum and State Commission had concurrently held that there was no negligence and accordingly complaint was dismissed. Nobody appeared for the complainant-petitioner when the matter was listed on 3.8.2001. It is not disputed that the notice in fact was sent and was received. Further he mentioned that the telegram was sent by the counsel to adjourn the matter. No such telegram was brought to the notice when the petition was dismissed in default. When notice was given and was received by the petitioner, it was his duty to appear. It is stated then that nobody is to suffer for the fault of the advocate. We are unable to agree. If the advocate is deficient in service, he can be sued as held by this Commission in the case of Ram Rakesh Gupta and Anr. v. Smt. Ranjana (Revision Petition No. 1051/2001). This type of averment has done great harm to the administration of justice and we do not allow such type of arguments to advance before a Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no ground to restore this revision petition and the application for restoration is dismissed. Moreover, in view of the concurrent finding, we do not find it is a fit case for us exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.