MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. GHANSHYAM BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the order of the District Forum-I dated 27.7.1999 in Complaint Case No.1809/98 - entitled Shri Ghanshyam Bansal V/s. M. T. N. L.

(2.) The relevant facts, in brief are, that the respondent/complainant was the subscriber of telephone 7516791, installed at his residence. The above telephone of the respondent remained out of order from 1.10.1995 to 15.12.1995 and again from 25.5.1998 till 27.8.1998 and had been lying dead since 3.9.1998 till the filing of the complaint in the District Forum by the respondent. Despite repeated complaints and requests of the respondent in that regard, the appellant/mtnl failed to set right the telephone of the respondent. The respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the appellant/mtnl to set aside the demand of Rs.5,795.37 and Rs.588.84 raised by appellant/m. T. N. L. vide bills dated 16.7.1998 and 16.9.1998 respectively and to further grant a rebate of 800 calls. It was also prayed that the respondent be awarded Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss of business and another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards harassment and injury suffered by him.

(3.) In its reply/written version filed before the District Forum, the appellant/mtnl controverted the allegations of the respondent and took a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint filed by the respondent, on the ground that the same was barred by time. On merits, it was stated by the appellant that the bill for the billing cycle 16.7.1998 amounting to Rs.5,795/- had already been revised after the respondent had approached the Lok Adalat and that the amount of the said bill had been now reduced to Rs.936/- only, on the basis of past average. It was further stated in the written version/reply that the respondent had failed to pay the abovesaid revised bill for Rs.936/- as well as other bills dated 16.9.1998 for Rs.589/- and bill dated 16.11.1998 for Rs.399/- and, therefore, the telephone of the respondent was disconnected on account of non-payment of bills, on 2.9.1998.