BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD Vs. SUMIT MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arguments in this case were heard at Dharamshala on 20.12.2005 and order was reserved to be communicated to the parties.

(2.) Appellant is aggrieved from the order dated 17.7.2004 whereby it has been burdened with Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation for causing mental harassment and torture to the respondent. This amount has been ordered to be deposited with the Forum with 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.

(3.) In nutshell, the case set out by the respondent in his complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was that he is holding a telephone connection DMA 226934. He has paid up to date bills, despite that telephone has been disconnected. Appellant had no right to have done so. It was disconnected on 15.11.2003 arbitrarily with mala fide intention without assigning any reason and no registered notice was even sent to him. Respondent was also not informed as required under billing schedule, thus authorities have overridden the same. When put to notice, appellant by way of preliminary objection pleaded that complaint was not maintainable, as the relief demanded has already been given because telephone was restored as and when it received information of deposit of outstanding amount. Issuance of bill in the sum of Rs. 1502/ - to the respondent for the period 16.10.2003 to 31.10.2003 was admitted. It may be appropriate to notice here that when the appellant received information of deposit of outstanding amount, its date had not been mentioned, while pleading the restoration of the telephone. Whereas in the notice dated 24.11.2003 as well as in the complaint and rejoinder, payment is pleaded on 15.11.2003. This question of fact has not been specifically controverted by the appellant. We do not know why and for what reason this omission is there. As such, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it is purposeful, intentional and not bona fide.