DISTT.MANAGER, TELEPHONES, PATNA Vs. TARUN BHARTHUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal has challenged the order dated 19th April, 1990 of the State Commission, Bihar, Patna. After perusing the record and considering the oral submissions made at the hearing, this Commission has come to the following conclusions on each of the challenges to the order of the State Commission :

(2.) According to the Appellant the State Commission had quashed the bills from March, 1989 to August 1989 though the respondent had not asked for this relief in his complaint

(3.) In the Consumer Protection Act ˜Complainant has been defined in Sec. 2(2)(c). According to this definition, in a complaint about any unfair trade practice, the complaint has to indicate the loss or damage suffered by the Complainant. But, in respect of any complaint regarding deficiency in service, it is sufficient for him to specify the deficiency therein. In other words, there is no requirement that the complaint regarding deficiency in service must also indicate the loss of damages suffered by the Complainant due to that deficiency