MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED vs R.K.Gupta

MR. Mahesh Chandra, Member

THIS revision petition has been filed by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed by the District Forum (East), Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092 dated 22.5.2000. Vide impugned order, the learned District Forum has reviewed its own order dated 17.11.1999 and amended the order passed earlier. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent, Shri R.K. Gupta filed a complaint in the District Forum challenging the bill raised by the appellants, MTNL for the period 16.7.1998 to 15.9.1998 regarding telephone No. 2251929. This bill included an amount of Rs. 17,860/- as telephone rent for the period 1.3.1991 to 1.6.1998. The complainant challenged the claim of the telephone (sic.) deposited the bills raised by the MTNL. The complainant deposited Rs. 740/- which according to him was the correct amount of the bill. Unable to get any relief from the appellant, MTNL, he filed the complaint with the request to withdraw the claim of the amount of Rs. 18,754/- being the amount of arrears of rent for the period 1.3.1991 to 1.6.1998. In the District Forum, the O.P., MTNL stated that due to some technical fault, the bills given to the complainant since installation of the phone in 1991 did not include the telephone rent and, therefore, after correcting the arrears of rent for the entire period was added in the disputed bill. The learned District Forum after hearing both the parties found the MTNL deficient in service and ordered that the amount of the telephone rent due will be paid by the consumer in ten equal monthly instalments and the telephone shall not be disconnected. The District Forum also ordered that no rebate will be withdrawn on account of non-paying the bills in time. The District Forum also ordered for payment of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for harassment caused to the consumer including the cost of litigation. This order was pased on 17.11.1999.

Subsequently after passing of the above order, an application was moved by the complainant, Shri R.K. Gupta (respondent in this petition) for clarification of the order dated 17.11.1999 questioning the entitlement of the MTNL to claim the time barred arrears of rent beyond the period of three years. The complainant, Shri R.K. Gupta requested that clarification be issued that the complainant is not required to pay the dues which is time barred by law beyond three years prior to filing of the case. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following orders on 22.5.2000 : "File taken on the request of the complainant. Order passed by this Forum on 17.11.1999 is hereby amended to the effect that the complainant is to pay only the dues legally recoverable from him. Copy of the order be supplied to the respondent for compliance and a copy free of cost be also supplied to the complainant." It is the above revised order dated 22.5.2000 which has been challenged in this revision petition by the petitioner MTNL on the ground that the District Forum has no power to review its final reasoned order and the District Forum has exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing the order dated 17.11.1999. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the case of Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust, III (1999) CPJ 1 (SC), in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India has held that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by which Forum has been vested with the powers of review.

THE respondent, Shri R.K. Gupta has argued that since the order passed by the District Forum was vague, he sought for the clarification of the said order and the impugned order was a consent order passed by the District Forum after hearing both the parties. It has also been argued that it was not a review of the earlier order but only clarificatory order which was not in the nature of review or revision. We have heard both the parties and have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides as well as the documents on record. It is not disputed that final order was passed by the District Forum in Case No. 983/1998 on 17.11.1999 giving certain relief to the consumer as mentioned above. However, subsequently on the application of the complainant of that case, the order dated 17.11.1999 was modified and it was ordered that the "complainant is to pay only the dues legally recoverable from him". It is no doubt true that the Forums established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no powers to review their own order. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust, referred above has laid down the law on this issue. The Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of M/s. Scooter India Ltd. v. Pradeep Kumar, III (1999) CPJ 77 (NC), has also expressed the same view that no power of review has been conferred upon the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and followed by the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the above noted cases, it is apparent that the order passed by the District Forum modifying/reviewing the earlier order is without jurisdiction as the District Forum has no power to review its own order. The District Forum has exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the order dated 17.11.1999. Hence the revision petition is allowed and the revised order dated 22.5.2000 passed by the District Forum is set aside. In view of the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost. Revision Petition allowed.