LAWS(NCD)-2000-9-107

PARSHOTTAM DASS Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

Decided On September 04, 2000
PARSHOTTAM DASS Appellant
V/S
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 1.9.1997, passed by the District Forum-III in Complaint Case No.363/97- entitled Shri Parshottam Dass V/s. M. T. N. L.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Forum, averring therein that the appellant was subscriber of Telephone No.5412589, installed at his residence at E-365, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The appellant received a bill for the period from 1.4.1994 to 31.5.1994 for an amount of Rs.3,502/-, though, the telephone of the appellant had remained out of order for 5 weeks from 4.4.1994 to 7.5.1994. On repeated requests of the appellant, the Deputy General Manager of the respondent partly corrected the aforesaid bill by reducing the calls charged from 2,780 to 780 and the revised bill was duly paid by the appellant. However, the appellant still felt that the 780 calls charged in the disputed bill were on the excessive side and, therefore, again contacted the officials of the respondent for further adjustment on the basis of average calls reflected in the FNMR. But the appellant failed to elicit a positive response from the respondent/mtnl and was thus constrained to file a complaint before the District Forum praying for the refund of the amount paid in excess by him and also to allow rebate in rent for 5 weeks, during the period his telephone was out of order.

(3.) The stand of the respondent in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, was that since the complainant had already been given adjustment of 2,000 calls, in the bill for the billing cycle April, 1994, confirmed by its letter dated 14.11.1994, the complainant had no case. It was further submitted by the MTNL that the complainant had already been given rental rebate for the period from 15.4.1994 to 30.4.1994 when the telephone remained out of order.