MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Vs. MOHD SHAKIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against order dated 7.2.2001, passed by District Forum (Central), ISBT, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No.2786/1999 - entitled Shri Mohd. Shakir V/s. The General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Mohd. Shakir had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that his telephone, bearing No.7529118, installed at his residence, at A-571/11, Amar Puri, Nabi Karim, Prem Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi was non-functional for the last 15 months despite number of complaints and personal visits to the various functionaries of the appellant. It was further stated that though the above telephone of the respondent was non-functional during the above period yet the appellant without caring to have the same set in order continued to raise bills after every 2 months, which, the respondent continued to pay despite the fact that services of the telephone were never availed of by him. It was stated that the respondent even got issued a legal notice through his Counsel on 29.8.1998 but despite the legal notice the telephone was not made functional. The respondent, in the complaint, filed by him, besides claiming refund of the amount paid by him, also claimed compensation for the harassment caused to him.

(3.) The claim of the respondent, in the District Forum, was resisted by the appellant and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the respondent had not mentioned the specific date or the period for which the telephone in question was non-functional. It was also stated in the reply filed on behalf of the appellant that though in the Fortnightly Meter Reading (FNR), no calls had been shown to have been made after 15.9.1997 yet no complaint was filed by the respondent for the non-functioning of the telephone in question. It was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and that the respondent was not entitled to any compensation for the alleged harassment.