Puran Singh vs GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONES

THE appellant Shri Puran Singh is subscriber of Telephone No. 604978. THE old number of this telephone was 534978. Shri Puran Singh was aggrieved by bill dated 24.4.2001 issued by the respondent - General Manager, Telephones, Chandigarh for a sum of Rs. 6,797/-. Consequently, he filed Complaint Case No. 213 of 2001 alleging, inter alia, that his telephone was never disconnected on account of non-payment of these dues. He prayed for quashing of the said bills. THE complaint case was contested by the General Manager, Telephones and in the reply, it was contended that the complaint was barred by time as the complaint sought to challenge the telephone bills pertaining to period of May 1992, July 1992 and December 1995. THE complaint had been filed in May 2001. It was contended further that the complainant was liable to pay the amount of three bills. In case the complainant did not pay the amount of these bills, the department was competent to disconnect the telephone facility as aforesaid. Reference was also made to the prior litigation between the parties.

THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) after hearing the appellant Shri Puran Singh in person and Mr. G.C. Babbar, Advocate for the respondent/department rejected the plea of bar of limitation. Regarding the previous litigation, the District Forum-II referred to the order passed by the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh and order passed by this State Commission in appeal decided on 18.10.1996 and subsequently took into consideration the execution application filed before the District Forum-I which was decided on 10.4.2001 directing the opposite party to adjust a sum of Rs. 1,566/- in the ensuring bills of the complainant. Reference was also made to the order passed by this State Commission in appeal filed by Shri Puran Singh being appeal No. 159 of 2001 which was dismissed on 31.7.2001. THE District Forum concluded that the opposite party Department was under obligation to adjust Rs. 1,567/- along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 6.1.1992. THE complaint was decided by directing that the amount of Rs. 1,567/- plus interest of Rs. 4,348/- (w.e.f. 6.1.1992 till 16.10.2001) be adjusted against the demand of Rs. 6,796/-. THE balance was worked out as Rs. 2,449/- which was held to be the liability of the appellant Shri Puran Singh who was directed to pay the said amount. It was also mentioned in the order that the telephone of the complainant was disconnected. Further direction was made that after the complainant paid the amount of Rs. 2,449/-, the department/opposite party shall restore the telephone of the complainant forthwith. The complainant Shri Puran Singh has now filed this appeal against the order dated 17.10.2001 of the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh. One of the grounds urged in the appeal is that the law of limitation is very much relevant and valid in the present dispute. Reference has been made to Article 18 of the schedule appended with the Limitation Act and under this article the opposite party cannot claim bills of more than three years old. It was also contended that Article 112 of Limitation Act applied only in cases which are not specifically covered by other articles of Limitation Act. At the outset, it may be pointed out that the settled law is that limitation cannot be found to be the basis of a cause of action in a complaint case or a plaint. The bar of limitation can only be set up in the suit as a plea of defence. In this view of the matter, the finding of the District Forum rejecting plea of appellant is correct. In the instant case, the department has not filed any case for seeking the recovery of the appeal. If the opposite party department had filed the suit claiming the recovery of an amount, the complainant/appellant Shri Puran Singh could have taken a plea of bar of limitation in the written statement/reply.

So far as the previous litigation is concerned, the same attained finality as the appeal filed by complainant Shri Puran SIngh had been decided by this State Commission on 18.10.1996. Even subsequently, the appeal filed against the order of the District Forum in execution application was also decided by this State Commission on 31.7.2001. The orders passed while deciding the earlier complaint case cannot be called into question in these proceedings and the matter cannot be allowed to be reopened. The District Forum has appropriately considered the matter and has rightly concluded that the liability of the appellant comes to Rs. 2,449/- after adjustment of Rs. 1,567/- plus interest of Rs. 4,348/- against the demand of Rs. 6,797/-. We find that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity either on facts or in law. It may be pointed out that the appellant has filed photostat copies of the receipts showing payment of appeals dated 26.9.2001, regarding the aforesaid telephone and has also placed on record the photostat copies of the bills received by him for the period from 1.7.2001 to 31.8.2001 and 1.9.2001 to 31.10.2001 which were not placed before the District Forum-II and in any case these bills have no bearing on the complaint case wherein the bills were issued to the complainant relating to the period of May 1992, July 1992 and December 1995. Resultantly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.