NILAKANTHA MISHRA (A) vs Chief General Manager, Telecommunication

THIS appeal was filed on 15.7.1993 and there being defects in it, notice was issued to the appellant to remove the defects. The same having been sent by registered post to the appellant, the presumption is that it must have reached him. The defects were not removed and after long lapse of time when the matter was put up before us on 4.7.1997, we wanted to examine the matter before issuing notice to the parties to dispose of the case on merits if it so deserves. The case was posted to today for the said purpose.

THE complainant-appellant is a senior and competent Advocate of Puri who is the subscriber of a telephone since the year 1986. His grievance is that the Telecommunication Department has sent inflated bills right from the date of installation of the telephone which the complainant has been paying all through. In different paragraphs of the complaint petition he has indicated as to what amount of money he is entitled to get refund of in respect of the bills. THE total claim is Rs. l,142.99 p. in respect of the bills received by him from the year 1987 till the year 1990. Since his demand for refund of the money was not attended to by the Telecommunication Department, he filed the aforesaid case demanding the aforesaid amount together with compensation of Rs. 75,000/- towards mental agony. The Telecommunication Department contested the case before the District Forum denying the allegations in the complaint petition. The specific case of the Department was that the bills were paid by the complainant without raising any objection that they were excessive. It has also been indicated that the complainant being a reputed Advocate of Puri having long standing practice, the bills in respect of his telephone can by no stretch of imagination be said to be excessive. A ground was taken saying that the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.

The District Forum after considering the case of both parties dismissed the case of the complainant holding that there is no merit. Hence this appeal by the complainant.

THE complainant has not engaged any Advocate for filing of this appeal. He himself filed the appeal but when noticed did not remove the defects pointed out. Mr. P.N. Mohapatra however, has appeared in this appeal representing the respondents. In normal course of events, we would have issued notice to the appellant fixing a date of the hearing but before doing so, we examined the prima facie merit of this appeal. After giving our anxious consideration to each aspect of the matter raised by the complainant in the grounds of appeal, we are of the view that the complainant''s case has been rightly dismissed by the District Forum. A part of his grievance relating to refund of money is evidently barred by limitation and therefore no cognizance can be taken in respect to that demand. Even the period which is within the period of limitation, the complainant has not been able to make out any case whatsoever in support of his prayer for refund of the money allegedly realised from him under different bills. Mr. Mohapatra during the course of his argument indicated that as noted by the District Forum the complainant is a Senior Advocate of repute having forty years of standing and is a very busy Advocate. For an Advocate of his stature, the bill for his telephone is rather on the lower side and much below the expectation. At any rate, his argument is that the bills having been paid without any objection, the complainant is estopped from raising any objection in the aforesaid case. THE District Forum has thoroughly analysed the matter and has come to the said conclusion that the complainant has not taken recourse to any of the processes of law available for challenging the bills in question. We, therefore, hold that there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly we do not admit it and dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.