AMBIKA SINGH Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. At the outset it is noted from the scrutiny-sheet put up by the Registry that there is a delay of 67 days in filing the present revision petition. The Petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay. Perusal of para 2 thereof shows that the application for certified copy was filed by the Petitioner on 03.08.2010 and the certified copy was ready on 31.08.2010 but the counsel for the Petitioner before the State Commission did not tell about the final decision of the appeal by the State Commission to the Petitioner on time. Besides this, the Petitioner has submitted that consulting the Advocates at Delhi and Saharanpur took quite some time besides the time spent in translating some documents and signing of the Vakalatnama. The reasons put forth by the Petitioner to justify the delay of more than 2 months as per the Registry and about 5 months from the date of the certified copy being ready, could hardly be considered as satisfactory or convincing. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay and the revision petition can be dismissed on this ground alone. We have, however, looked into the merits as well.

(2.) The dispute in this case pertains to the two mobile phone bills received by the complainant in respect of Mobile Phone No. 9412234354. It is not disputed that the Petitioner / complainant who had taken the mobile connection under the student scheme requested the General Manager, BSNL, Saharanpur vide her application dated 20.05.2004 for withdrawal of the mobile phone service because she did not intend to continue it further. Accepting the request of the Petitioner, the telephone authorities closed the mobile services with immediate effect. However, the complainant / Petitioner received a bill dated 19.08.2004 for Rs. 1,788/-in the month of August and likewise she received another bill dated 19.09.04 for Rs. 1,888/-. It is not disputed that the second bill is not a different bill but for the amount of old bill of August 2004 alongwith an amount of Rs. 100/-added on account of the non-payment of the earlier bill and hence the Petitioner was required to pay the later bill of 19.09.04 totaling Rs. 1888/-. According to the Petitioner it was a wrong bill since she had already got her mobile connection stopped on 20.05.2004 and hence having failed to get a positive response to her representation from the telephone authorities approached the District Forum by lodging a consumer complaint against the Respondent authorities. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the Petitioner and gave substantial relief to the Petitioner by quashing the disputed bill amount Rs. 1888/-as also the earlier bill of Rs. 1,788/-and also directed the Respondent authorities to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000/-on account of deficiency in service and Rs. 1,000/-for litigation expenses. The O Ps carried order of the District Forum before the State Commission in appeal which when heard by the State Commission found favor with it. Vide its impugned order the State Commission accordingly dismissed the complaint and set aside the order of the District Forum. We have carefully gone through the order of the Fora below. The State Commission while unseating the claim of the Petitioner in respect of the disputed bills has observed as under:

(3.) In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence in favor of the defense of the OP, the State Commission rightly allowed the appeal and no fault could be found with the finding of the State Commission through the impugned order. The District Forum obviously allowed the complaint based on wrong appreciation of the facts and the evidence adduced by the parties before it. We find the impugned order of the State Commission as well-reasoned which does not leave any scope for our interference with the same while exercising our provisional jurisdiction. We further find that the State Commission has already given the relief which is due to the Petitioner in respect of the payment of Rs. 200/-on account of late fee charges, which obviously could not have been levied by the OP since they alone were to be blamed for sending the bill late. The revision petition bereft of any merit is liable for dismissal and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.