State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Karam Dass Nawar vs G.M Bsnl Mandi & Ors on 14 September, 2011
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA,CAMP AT Mandi. FIRST APPEAL NO.396/2006 DATE OF DECISION: 14.9.2011. In the matter of: Karam Dass Nawar son of Man Dass, residentof Village Sakrod, P.O. Barohakari, Sub Tehsil Nihari, District Mandi, H.P. Appellants Versus 1. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., through its General Manager, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. 2. The Accounts Officer, BSNL, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. 3. Incharge Telephone Sub Exchange, BSNL, Sub Tehsil, Nihari, District Mandi, H.P. Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member.
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
For the Appellant: Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate, For the Respondents: Mr. Diken Rana, Advocate. Vice Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member(Oral).
1. When hearing in this appeal commenced, Mr. Diken Rana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that assuming everything for the sake of argument as alleged to be correct against his clients without conceding, even then the impugned order dismissing the complaint of the appellant is liable to be upheld in the face of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.(s).7687 of 2004 titled General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishnan & Another and other connected cases, decided on 1.9.2009.
2. Faced with this situation, Mr. R.S. Rana, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that his client has been charged excessively and the bill are being raised by the respondents showing arrears without appreciating the factual position. Even for the period when the Telephone Exchange, Nihari, was not in order, the appellant has been charged for the said period. The District Forum has fallen into error while appreciating the evidence on record which has caused miscarriage of justice and the order of the Forum below deserves to be set aside and appeal of the appellant is liable to be accepted.
3. The District Forum has elaborately dealt with the merits of the case. However, in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, (supra), we are of the opinion that we need not go into the merits of the case because looking to the law of the land as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, we cannot accept the submission of Mr. R.S. Rana, learned Counsel for the appellant. However, his client if so advised, will be at liberty to resort to remedy under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and in such a situation respondents will be precluded from contesting the claim of the appellant on the plea of limitation as according to us appellant was prosecuting his case before the Foras constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under a bonafide belief.
Ordered accordingly.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, and keeping in view the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, dated 1.9.2009, (supra), this appeal is dismissed and order passed by District Forum, Mandi in Complaint Case No.260/2006 on 20.11.2006 is upheld. However, it is clarified that the appellant will be well advised to approach the authorities under the provisions of Indian Telelgraph Act, 1885 and in such a situation, respondents will be entitled to contest the claim of the appellant on all grounds available to them except the plea of limitation. Appeal is disposed of in these terms.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
Mandi, September 14, 2011.
( Chander Shekhar Sharma ) Presiding Member ( Prem Chauhan ) Member.