BHAGWAN DASS PACHOURI vs MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 11.6.2003, passed by District Forum -II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 276/2002 - entitled Sh. Bhagwan Dass Pachouri v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Sh. Bhagwan Dass Pachouri had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that his personal telephone, bearing No. 6099131, installed at his residence at C-1633, Tigri Khanpur, New Delhi for domestic purpose did not function properly because the appellant refused to bribe the lineman who deliberately had created problem for that telephone. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent it was prayed by the appellant in the complaint filed by him that the appellant be awarded compensation of Rs. 45,000/- plus cost of litigation. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent. In its reply/written version, the allegation relating to demand of bribe by the lineman was specifically denied. It was stated that the complaints, whenever made by the appellant, were attended to and for the period from 8.11.2001 to 15.11.2001 when the telephone in question was out of order, rent rebate was given. The respondent in its reply/written version had also taken an objection that the appellant, being a PCO holder, was not a ''consumer''. It was stated that the complaint filed by the appellant deserved to be dismissed.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant on two grounds, namely that the complaint had not been signed by the appellant but was signed only by the Advocate and that the appellant was not a ''consumer'' within the meaning of the Act.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On a perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that one of the grounds for the dismissal of the complaint, filed by the appellant, in the District Forum, was that the complaint was not even signed by the appellant and on account of that lacuna in the complaint it was held by the learned District Forum that the complaint filed by the appellant was liable to be rejected. On a query made by us the learned Counsel for the appellant was fair enough to concede that the complaint was actually not signed by the appellant but was signed by the Counsel for the appellant. The complaint in question, under the Act, was a statutory complaint and the same should have been signed and verified by the complainant or by a person duly authorised by the complainant to sign and verify that complaint. It is all the more necessary because in terms of provisions contained in Section 26 of the Act it has been provided that where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, is found to be frivolous and fictitious, the same can be dismissed and the complainant can be ordered to pay to the opposite party such costs not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- as may be specified in the order. In case the complaint is not signed by the complainant and the redressal agency, established under the Act, holds that the complaint filed by the complainant is frivolous and fictitious and imposes cost under Section 26 of the Act, in that event such a complainant can successfully take the plea that the complaint was not filed by him. In our opinion on the above ground alone the complaint deserved to be dismissed and no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum on the above count.

IN view of the above discussion, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost. Since the above mentioned appeal has been disposed of by us purely on technical grounds, we would like to make it clear that the dismissal of the present appeal will not operate to the prejudice of the appellant in filing a fresh complaint on the same cause of action in accordance with the law. The above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.