WEST COAST INDUSTRIES Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER MTNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint is jointly filed by the complainants M/s. West Coast Industries and by Bombay Telephone Users Association alleging excessive billing by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL), Bombay.

(2.) THE short facts are that the complainant No. 1, M/s. West Coast Industries had hired the services of opposite party, the M.T.N.L. For a Fax machine bearing No. 341153 installed on 10-5-1988. THEreafter, the Fax machine number was changed and new No. 8550965 was given to the complainant. THE change in the number was effected on 23-10-1989. THE complainant alleged that his earlier bills for the Fax machine for a billing period used to be within the range of Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. THE last bill for the period 1-9-1989 to 1-11-1989 was Rs. 28,986/-. In short, there was no abnormal variation in the bill between the period 19-5-1988 till 23-10-1989. THE complainant alleged that the bill dated 4-3-1990 for the said Fax machine was received for Rs. 94,994/- for the billing period 23-10-1989 to 18-12-1989. It is marked as Exh. D. THE next bill for the billing period dated 18-12-1989 to 15-2-1990 was for Rs. 1,32,480. It is at Exh. F. THE complainant raised the dispute with the opposite party by alleging excessive billing vide letter dated 9-3-1990 as regards both the bills. In response to these two letters, the opposite party provisionally split the aforesaid bills to Rs. 28,550/- keeping the balance of Rs. 66,444/- in abeyance pending the investigation by the Divisional Engineer. A copy of that letter is at Exh. (I). THE said split bill was paid by the complainant on 23-4-1990 with a forwarding letter. A copy is at Exh. K. THE complainant also received the third excessive bill dated 16-5-1990 for the billing period of 15-2-1990 to 31-3-1990 (45 days) for Rs. 85,454/-. It is at Exh. N. THE complainant further alleged that in order to convince the opposite party about their excessive billing, two parallel records of their FAX machine and TELEX machine were sent to the opposite party for purposes of comparison. It is further alleged that the M.T.N.L. without making proper investigation disconnected the FAX machine of the complainant on 15-10-1990. THE complainant further alleged that there was no response for his representations made to the General Manager, M.T.N.L. and, therefore, he was forced to file a suit for injunction in the City Civil Court. An injunction was granted on 30-11-1990 which was vacated on 7-3-1991. THEreafter, the complainant presented this complaint on 10-7-1991.

(3.) WE will first deal with the objection about the jurisdiction. Ms. Shah contended that since the complainant had approached the City Civil Court, Bombay in S. No. 8766 of 1990 as regards the excessive bills in question, this Court cannot adjudicate this complaint. WE have perused the order dated 7-3-1991 passed by the learned Judge in the aforesaid Civil Suit. The plaint was returned for want of jurisdiction and for presentation to the proper Court. No finding was given by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court on merits as regards the claim in that suit. In view of this circumstance, we find that the objection about the maintainability of this complaint for want of jurisdiction is not available in any way since the aforesaid civil suit was not decided on merits. The objection regarding the jurisdiction, therefore, must fail. The complaint is as regards the deficiency in the service of opposite party under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and hence this Commission is competent to decide this consumer dispute.