JAGDISH RAM GUPTA Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is in revision before us. His grievance was that his telephone remained disconnected for over as year. Complaining deficiency in service he approached the District Forum which allowed the complaint and directed payment of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost.

(2.) Both the complainant and the opposite party filed appeals before the State Commission. While appeal filed by the opposite party is allowed that by the complainant is dismissed. Telephone connection of the petitioner-complainant was disconnected on account of non-payment of the bills. Complainant is a practisting Advocate. He says he suffered loss in his profession because his telephone remained disconnected. We have seen the telephone bills.They are not that excessive for the complainant to make such an allegation. Complainant's grievance is that he represented to the Department about the excessive bills and without taking decision on that his telephone was disconnected.

(3.) State Commission in its order has referred the relevant rules and held that disconnection of the telephone was justified. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission in exercise of our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.