MANGAL SAIN vs Union of India

FIRST Appeal Nos. 418 and 419 of 1992 preferred by the same appellants are directed against the virtually identical orders of the District Forum both dated the 18th of November, 1992. The parties are agreed that this order will govern both of them.

AT the very outset it may be noticed that somewhat curiously these appeals are being preferred against the order allowing the complaints preferred by the appellant in the terms, he had prayed for. It, therefore, suffices to notice the facts and merits in their barest outline. The appellant was apparently aggrieved with regard to the excessive billing for telephone charges for his telephone No. 3670atKarnal. It is manifest from the order under appeal that during the course of the hearing, the primal grievance on behalf of the complainant-appellant was raised that the respondents had failed to refer the dispute to the arbitrators as they were allegedly bound to do under the terms and conditions of the grant of the telephone. The District Forum without more acceded to the said plea of the appellant and directed as under: "In the result this complaint is partly allowed in the manner and to the extent that the opposite party shall compensate the consumer by referring the dispute of excessive billing raised by him to the arbitrator for final adjudication in accordance with the contract of service within a period of one month."

Mr. R.K. Vij, the learned Advocate for the appellant was obviously hard-put to urge anything meaningful in support of the appeals. It is fairly conceded that before the District Forum the appellant had himself prayed for the relief which stands granted. Therefore, one fails to see how any grievance can now possibly be made against the order which is virtually consensual in nature and resting on the express prayer of the appellant.

MR. Vij had then half-heartedly argued that subsequently orders of the National Commission in I (1991) CPJ 203 (NC)=1991 CPC 31 ''Union of India v. Nirlesh Aggarwal'' and I (1991) CPJ 149=1991 CPC 261 ''Bhushan v. Rakesh Aggarwal'' have come to be reported and consequently the appellant should be allowed to take advantage of the same. We are unable to find any modicum of merit in what appears to us as an argument of desperation. It bears repetition that the relief has been granted to the appellant by the District Forum in the terms he prayed for. This is more than manifest from the pleadings themselves. Even in the complaint preferred by the appellant in para 13 thereof express reference was made to the arbitration clause. In such a situation the rendering of the precedent aforesaid either earlier or later to the order under appeal cannot possibly make any difference whatsoever to the merits of the present controversy.

FOR the foregoing reasons both these appeals must fail. We were inclined to burden the appellant with costs, but refrain from doing so. Appeals dismissed.