State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohd. Rais vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. on 20 December, 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: 20.12.2007 First Appeal No.267/2003 (Arising from the order dated 01.01.2003 passed by District Forum(Central) Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No.74/2001) Sh. Mohd. Rais Appellant. Proprietor M/s. Metlon India 934, Haveli Azam Khan, Jama Masjid, Delhi. Versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Respondent Through its General Manager (East-III), 10, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Jeevan Bharti Building, 10th Floor, 124, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 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)
1. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order dated 01.01.2003, passed by the District Forum, whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking refund of the security as well as compensation for the failure of ISDN facility installed at his residence was dismissed, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. Allegations of the appellant against the respondent, in brief, were that he applied for installation of ISDN telephone to the respondent, which was allotted but the instrument was not properly installed and proper connection was not given and only on the basis of the ISDN telephone number given by the respondent, they started raising heavy bills even though not a single call was made by the appellant. The appellant in the very beginning applied for the closure of the said ISDN telephone but the respondent never responded in proper manner. On 15.10.1999 the officers of the respondent visited the premises of the appellant and gave a letter stating that the phone was lying disconnected due to non-paymnet w.e.f. 12.08.1999. On 19.04.2000 the appellant received another letter issued by Commercial Officer (RE) of the respondent in relation to the refund of security deposit and he deposited originals of the acknowledgement receipt cum demand note but till date the amount has not been refunded nor they picked up the instrument lying with the appellant. He prayed that respondent should cancel the ISDN telephone connection No.3259720 and refund the security deposit and take away the instrument, quash the bill sent and compensate him for the loss and damages caused to him and also pay cost of the proceedings.
3. In its defence the respondent took the plea that the ISDN telephone connection was installed and opened in the name of the appellant on 21.01.1999. As per the terms and conditions of ISDN telephone connection, the respondent department charges Rs.4,500/- towards the NT instrument installation, Rs.3000/- as registration charges and nine months advance security deposit and the said fact was made aware to the appellant before the installation of the connection. The appellant had however deposited only Rs.3,000/- towards registration charge of the ISDN connection. The charges for the remaining amount towards advance security and the NT instrument installation were sent through the monthly bills to the appellant. The appellant however failed to make the said payment due to which the telephone could not function. Thereafter the respondent department called for the payment of the above stated security deposit as well as the rental charges of the said telephone which are Rs.1000/- per month. The appellant failed to pay, due to which the respondent disconnected the ISDN telephone connection on 12.08.1999. Respondent further stated that in view of the position explained above the bills issued by the respondent cannot be quashed.
4. Main grievance of the appellant is that the District Forum erred in holding that once connection was provided a subscriber cannot escape from making the required payments in as much as that only the connection was provided and not ISDN and therefore, respondent was not entitled to include the security deposit in the subsequent bills and also the rental charges.
5. We have perused the impugned order closely and find that the aforesaid contentions has not at all been addressed by the District Forum. Hence, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and send back the matter to the District Forum with the direction to decide the matter afresh.
6. The parties shall appear before District Forum on 29.01.2008 for the aforesaid purpose.
7. 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.
Announced today on 20th day of December 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri