TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER vs THULASI RAM

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 27.1.1999 in O.P. No. 1/1998 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sivaganga. The opposite parties are the appellants while the respondent is the complainant.

THE complainant is the subscriber of a telephone number being MMA-68241. According to him, telephone bills issued to him for the period between 6.3.1995 and 5.5.1997 were inflated and excessive in the sense of not reflecting really the calls emanating from his phone and the bill issued to him was to the tune of Rs. 5,100/- which is not payable by him. The opposite parties filed a counter disputing the case as projected by the complainant.

The Forum below passed a consent order and the order so passed reads as below : "Whereas a dispute concerning the Telephone Bill dated 21.5.1997 for a sum of Rs. 5,100/- has arisen between the Telecom Authorities (hereafter called the respondent) and the petitioner herein of whom Telephone No. 68241 was provided. With the consent of both parties the matter has been referred to Arbitration under Section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act. If the telephone connection was already disconnected, the respondent is directed to restore the same till disposal of the dispute. The arbitration proceedings shall as far as possible be concluded within six months from the date of receipt of this order. In the result the matter is referred to Arbitration under Section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The case has to be disposed of within six months from the receipt of this order. Both parties do bear their own cost."

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, opposite parties entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice, namely learned Counsel M/s. M.T. Arunan. On service of process, the respondent/complainant entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice, namely learned Counsel M/s. P. Pandithurai and P. Madhan. When the matter came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsel appearing for both sides were called absent and no representation is made on their behalf. We are however inclined to dispose of the appeal on merits.

EVEN at the outset, we may point out that there are absolutely no merits in this appeal. The order passed by the Forum below is after all an order passed by consent of both parties. The order so passed has to be necessarily complied with by the parties. There is no material to point out that the consent order so passed is vitiated by fraud or mistake. Such being the case, it goes without saying that the order so passed by the Forum below cannot at all be found fault with. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.