SURESH BHAI vs PATNA TELEPHONES

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum where alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent/opposite party by way of raising excessive telephone bill, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum where his complaint was dismissed on 3.7.1997 on the grounds that the complainant remained absent on the date of hearing and the opposite party informing the District Forum that the bill raised has since been revised downwards; the complainant''s prayer for payment of the amount in instalment has been accepted; the complainant has allegedly paid the first instalment and the telephone connection of the complainant has been restored. A petition filed by the complainant before the District Forum to review its order was rejected on 15.9.1997.

AN appeal was filed against the order of 15.9.1997 before the State Commission, who dismissed the appeal as the order dated 15.9.1997 was correct. The District Forum order was on merit - hence as per settled law on the subject could not have reviewed its own order. No appeal having been filed against the main order dated 3.7.1997, it attained finality. This revision petition has been filed before us on the ground that the District Forum had dismissed the complaint for non-submission of any record and the complainant remaining absent from the beginning which amounts to the complaint having been dismissed in default for which the District Forum has the power of reviewing its own order. The District Forum erred in this regard. The State Commission also erred in this regard. Orders of both the lower Forums are bad hence need to be dismissed and complaint be allowed.

WE have seen the order of the District Forum ourselves and see that the orders dismissing the complaint contains the status of the case brought out by the opposite party. The complainant was absent. Opposite party had responded to the representations of the complainant as a result of consideration of which, bill is revised downwards, instalments fixed and the first instalment paid by the complainant and connection restored. This fact has not been rebutted at any stage. Nothing was left for the District Forum to do in this case. Hence we see, that it is in the totality of the consideration of the case, that the complaint was dismissed on merits as well as on account of absence of the complainant. This order could not have been reviewed by the District Forum. The order of the State Commission is as per law on the object. We see no merit in the petition which is dismissed. No order as to costs.