K.K.CHHABRA vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

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 20.10.2000, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 3086/99 - entitled Shri K.K. Chhabra v. THE General Manager (West-I), Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant Shri K.K. Chhabra had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum averring that the appellant had applied for STD facility on his telephone bearing No. 5505038 on 18.12.1991 and got the said facility in January, 1992. It was stated by the appellant in his complaint that on 1.6.1999, he received a bill which showed that the respondent/MTNL had charged the appellant for ISD calls made in connection with ''Godrej Cricket Contest''. THE grievance of the appellant in the complaint, filed by him, before the District Forum was that the appellant never applied for ISD facility and the respondent/MTNL also never informed him that ISD facility was available at his telephone. It was prayed by the appellant that the respondent/ MTNL be directed not to charge him for the ISD calls. THE appellant also claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent and in the written statement/written version, filed on behalf of the respondent, the stand taken by the respondent/MTNL was that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. It was stated that the appellant had admitted having dialled ''Godrej Cricket Contest'' numbers and, therefore, the appellant could not be given any advantage of his own wrongs. It was stated that dynamic STD facility was provided to the appellant on appellant''s own request made by him in December, 1991. It was also stated that in the year 1991-1992 there was no separate facility for STD and ISD and the STD facility included ISD facility also.

The learned Di strict Forum vide impugned order has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. It is not in dispute that the appellant had applied for STD facility on his telephone in December, 1991 and the said facility was provided to the appellant on his telephone in January, 1992. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had written a letter dated 14.6.1999 to the Deputy General Manager of the respondent admitting that he had dialled Nos. 001416208331 and 001416208332 which were advertised by Godrej about a cricket match. In the abovesaid letter it is stated by the appellant that he was not told by Godrej in the advertisement that the abovesaid numbers were ISD numbers and that the appellant would be charged at that rate. The above letter, written by the appellant, the correctness of which is not disputed even by the appellant, virtually takes the bottom out of the case of the appellant. On the basis of above facts, it is established that the appellant from his telephone dialled the above said ISD numbers, may be on account of ignorance, but no benefit for the ignorance of the appellant can be given to him in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, when the appellant has dialled ISD numbers there is no justification in his request that the respondent be directed not to charge him for ISD calls.

FOR the above reasons, in our opinion, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.