O P VERMA Vs. M T N L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT of the appellant seeking quashing of telephone bills for the billing cycle 16.11.94 to 15.1.95 for the amount of Rs. 25,567 and for the billing cycle of 16.1.95 to 15.3.95 for Rs. 5,135 showing some STD calls in spite of the fact that no STD facility was there was dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.6.1997 solely on the ground that since the appellant had filed a Civil Suit before Civil Court, the complaint before the District Forum was not maintainable.

(2.) ON the face of it the impugned order suffers from inherent infirmity as the kind of relief sought by way of Civil Suit is on different premises whereas under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a consumer seeks remedy by way of compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence or deficiency on the part of the opposite party. It is in view of this that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the proceedings or remedy under Consumer Protection Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

(3.) IN view of the allegations that there was no STD facility available on the telephone in question still the STD calls were recorded, the Counsel for the respondent contended that the allegation is incorrect and baseless as the appellant himself had applied for STD facility vide application dated 25th May, 1984 when the telephone connection was applied for.