State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
D.E.T. Telephone Department, vs Daya Nand Singh on 5 April, 2011
Daily Order
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BIHAR, PATNA First Appeal No. A/630/2000 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/06/2000 in Case No. CC/83/1998 of District Jehanabad) 1. D.E.T. Telephone Department Gaya and another BEFORE: HONABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHANDRA JHA PRESIDENT HONABLE MRS. RENU SINHA MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
Date of order: 05-04-2011 S.C. JHA, PRESIDENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-D.E.T., Telephone, Gaya. Nobody appears for the respondent. Written notes of argument has already been filed by the appellant.
2. The respondent Daya Nand Singh filed complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gaya in respect of receipt of excessive bill for the period from 1st February,1995 to 15th April, 1995.
3. The learned District Forum allowed the complaint thereby cancelling the bill submitted by the Telephone Department and directed the appellant to furnish correct bill within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order dated 26-06-2000 passed in Consumer Complaint No.83/1998. Besides appellant was also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- by way of compensation.
4. The appellant appeared before the District Forum and refuted the claim with this contention that the complainant-respondent was provided STD facility and the telephone was used by the complainant-respondent during the disputed period.
5. Now, the contention has been advanced that the learned District Forum has not considered the relevant bills commencing from 15-10-1994 to 15-06-1995, as such, the telephone connection was disconnected. Moreover, the period for limitation for filing such complaint was only two years whereas the complaint was filed in the year 1998,i.e., beyond the prescribed period of limitation for which no explanation was offered. Moreover, a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in PLJR 2010 (1) SC 32 (General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & ano.) and other decisions has also been relied upon by the appellant reported in AIR 1996 SC 1545 and AIR 1996 SC 9476 as also a decisions reported in 1992 (2) CPR 115 and CDA 387/1993.
6. In nut shell emphasis has been given for application of provision contained in Section-7, clause-3 of the Indian Telegraph Act wherein there is clear provision for redressal of such dispute in the Arbitration in respect of telephone discrepancy and dispute of telephone dues and as such, more or less jurisdiction of Consumer Forum has been barred.
7. Since nobody appeared for the respondent so as to contradict and controvert the citations placed before us on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable on fact and in law.
8. In the fact and circumstances, the complaint being time barred itself was not maintainable and so, the order under challenge is not sustainable on facts and in law.
9. In the result, the order under challenge is set-aside and the appeal is hereby allowed. There shall be no order as to cost. [HONABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHANDRA JHA] PRESIDENT [HONABLE MRS. RENU SINHA] MEMBER