MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. N N JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the ex-parte order passed by the District Forum, Bombay dated 19.4.1990. Despite notice, the present appellant (opposite party) did not file any version and remained absent. The District Forum, therefore, passed on ex-parte order which is impugned in this appeal by the appellant. We find from record that notice u/s.13 of the Consumer Protection Act was issued by the District Forum dated 22.2.1990. It was received by the appellant on 29.2.1990. The impugned order is dated 19.4.1990.

(2.) The appellant in his appeal has raised various contentions as regards the facts and law. All these contentions which are raised in this appeal could have been very well placed before the District Forum which could consider them after hearing both the parries. However, that exercise is not possible in our appellate jurisdiction. After receipt of the notice of the complaint on 29.2.1990, the appellant had sufficient time to file its reply and necessary documents before the District Forum. The impugned order is dated 19.4.1990. Thus for nearly two months' period, there was conspicuous silence on the part of the appellant who are having a regular office and the necessary staff to manage their affairs. Despite the notice from the District Forum, Bombay, the appellant kept quiet till September, 1990 when the present appeal is filed. There is no material placed on record before the District Forum by the appellant to take contrary view.

(3.) On perusal of the record of the District Forum, we find that the complainant had alleged that for 40 days his telephone was out of order and his repeated complaints were not attended to by the appellant. In support of his allegations, the complainant has placed on record the copies of the complaints he made with the postal acknowledgement to show that the appellant had received those complaints. None of the complaints were attended to by the appellant. The complainant has also placed on record an intimation dated 3.3 : 1990 showing that the telephone of the complainant faulty from 5.1.1990 to 31.1.1990 for 26 days and he was refunded the rebate in rental of that said period. Similarly, the complainant also placed on record a printed pamphlet which indicates that the public meeting on telephone problems was arranged at Chembur on 18.3.1990 to ventilate the grievances of the Telephone users. All this material clearly indicates that the complainant proved his allegations in the complaint and was, therefore granted Rs.500/- as compensation, with direction to the appellant to refund the rent for the period 1st to 12th January, 1990. We do not find that there is any illegality or miscarriage of justice in the order passed by the District Forum, Bombay. Hence the appeal stands dismissed with costs.