GULZARI LAL AGARWAL Vs. ACCOUNTS OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 17/5/19955, in Revision Petition No. 393 of 1994 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'national Commission'). It is not disputed that at the relevant time when the order dated 21/1/1994 was passed by the State Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') it was not having a President since he had retired. No new President was appointed on the said State Commission. A complaint was filed by the appellant herein before the District Forum, Bankura as regards inflated telephone bills. A prayer was made in the said complaint that the respondent herein be directed not to disconnect the telephone connection. An order was made by the District Forum in favour of the appellant directing the respondent not to disconnect the telephone connection and maintain the telephone line on condition that the appellant deposits a sum of Rs. 4,000. 00. The appellant accordingly complied with the said order. It appears that despite this order, the telephone connection of the appellant was disconnected on 30-11- 1993. The appellant thereafter moved an application for restoration and it is common premise that on 25/5/1994, the telephone connection was restored. The complaint as regards the excessive bill of Rs. 13,896. 00 is still pending.

(2.) The respondent not being satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum preferred an appeal to the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 21/1/1994 dismissed the said appeal, holding that the order passed by the District Forum was in consonance with the circular dated 15/10/19922 issued by the Telephone Department. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the respondent preferred revision petition under Section 21 of the Act before the National Commission. The National Commission after hearing the parties vide its impugned order dated 17/5/1995 allowed the revision petition primarily on the ground of jurisdiction. The National Commission has held as under:

(3.) It is this order passed by the National Commission which is the subject- matter of challenge in this appeal.