Girdhari Lal Sharma vs M.T.N.L.

MR. Girdhari Lal Sharma, complainant approached District Forum-I by two complaints No. 1342 and 2266 both of 1993 with the grievance that his telephone remained dead for long periods and was not set-right despite repeated complaints as per following details : Period No. of Days No. of calls in FNMR 13.2.1993 to 25.2.1993 12 11 24.3.1993 to 3.4.1993 11 22 1.5.1993 to 11.10.1993 160 28 The complainant claimed rental rebate for 180 days and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. District Forum-I disposed of both the cases by order dated 16.6.1994. On a consideration of the FNMR, the District Forum held that it was satisfied that the telephone remained dead for about 180 days as alleged by the complainant and was, therefore, entitled to rental rebate for the said period. As against the claim of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, the District Forum allowed Rs. 3,000/-. Admittedly, no appeal was filed against the order. In fact, the opposite party-MTNL, paid the amount of compensation by cheque dated 9.9.1994.

THE complainant filed Case No. 522/96 against MTNL with the following grievances : (a) Bill dated 1.4.1993 for Rs. 498/- was the subject matter of the earlier complaints which were decided in his favour and inspite of that order, the said amount had been shown as outstanding against the complainant in later bills. (b) THE complainant''s name which previously appeared in the telephone directory was omitted in the last printed directory. (c) THE telephone remained dead for the under-mentioned periods.

Period No. of days 8.1.1996 to 22.1.1996 20 26.2.1996 to 4.3.1996 8 (d) On 4.3.1996, the previous telephone which was No. 7120082 was changed to 7415185. Even after the change, the telephone became faulty again and again. Details mentioned in this connection were as follows : Period No. of days No. of calls 25.6.1996 to 24.7.1996 30 negligible 29.7.1996 to 4.8.1996 6 48 15.8.1996 to 30.9.1996 45 158 4.10.1996 to 31.12.1996 92 27 (e) THE telephone was disconnected for non-payment of the bill dated 1.4.1993 for Rs. 498/- as well as two other bills as per following details : Period Amount 16.5.1997 521.00 (Ultimately paid on 13.2.1998) 16.7.1997 538.00 (Ultimately paid on 13.2.1998). After hearing the parties, the District Forum held that in the earlier order disposing of two previously instituted complaints, the bill dated 1.4.1993 for Rs. 498/- was not quashed. It was further held that, in fact, name of the complainant was not omitted and the same was duly printed at page 2028 Volume-II of the 1994 directory. The department had itself decided to give rebate to the complainant with respect to two periods 8.1.1996 to 27.1.1996 and 26.2.1996 to 4.3.1996. The District Forum further held that the complainant was entitled to rebate in rental for the period 25.6.1996 to 24.7.1996 and 4.10.1996 to31.12.1996 but was not entitled to other periods namely 29.7.1996 to 4.8.1996 and 15.8.1996 to 30th September, 1996. DNP for non-payment of bill on 27.10.1997 was held justified as admittedly the complainant had not paid the bill dated 1.4.1993 for Rs. 498/- and two other bills referred to in the earlier part of the order had been deposited much after the disconnection on 13.2.1998. The complainant was allowed rental rebate for two periods 25.6.1996 to 24.7.1996 and 4.10.1996 to 31.10.1996 but was disallowed rental rebate for two other periods namely 29.7.1996 to 4.8.1996 and 15.8.1996 to 30.9.1996. He was further allowed Rs. 1,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and inconvenience and Rs. 500/- as costs.

Dissatisfied with the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. Reply has been filed by the respondent.

WE have heard the appellant and Mr. S. Pattjoshi, Advocate, for the respondent and have carefully gone through the records. Though in the appeal, the appellant has denied that his name appears at page 2028 of Volume-II of the directory, we have seen the printed directory ourselves and we find name of the appellant duly printed at the said page being 7th entry in column-2. The plea raised in the appeal in this behalf is totally untenable.

THE main contention of the appellant is that in Case No. 1342 of 1993 he had challenged the bill dated 1.4.1993 for Rs. 498/-. Since the complaint was decided in his favour and the opposite party was burdened with Rs. 3,000/- as compensation, it followed that the said bill had been quashed. Copy of the Complaint No. 1342/ 93 decided on 16.6.1994 has not been placed on record. What appears in the order of District Forum-I dated 16.6,1994 shows that the said bill dated 1.4.1993 was not in dispute nor was it either expressly or by necessary implication quashed. THE only relief given was rental rebate for 180 days and compensation of Rs. 3,000/-. A perusal of the bill dated 1.4.1993 shows that apart from rental, it contains bill on account of recorded number of calls. We agree with the District Forum that the bill dated 1.4.1993 had not been quashed by the Forum by its order dated 16.6.1994 and, therefore, disconnection of the telephone for non-payment on 27.10.1997 was justified. Another reason given by the District Forum for reaching the above conclusion is that whereas the bill dated 1.4.1993 for Rs. 498/- related to the billing cycle 16.1.1993 to 15.3.1993, rental rebate was given only for part of that period, namely 13.2.1993 to 25.2.1993. We find no infirmity in this reasoning. Apart from the fact that the order of the District Forum rendered in the earlier two cases, on 16.6.1994, did not quash the bill dated 1.4.1993 for Rs.498/-, it was open to the complainant to have preferred an appeal against the order in case he though that the said bill was required to be quashed and had not been erroneously so declared by the District Forum. Admittedly, the complainant also preferred no appeal against that order. To sum-up, the complainant has now deposited two bills dated 16.5.1997 for Rs. 521/-. and 16.7.1997 for Rs. 538/-. though belatedly on 13.2.1998 and may if so advised, deposit the bill dated 1.4.1993 for Rs. 498/- and on payment of restoration charges and rental for the interagnum period the telephone shall be restored. For the foregoing reason s, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs in the appeal. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties and District Forum. Appeal dismissed.