CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER MTNL Vs. CONSUMER RIGHTS SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition preferred by petitioner, Chief General Manager, M.T.N.L. against the order dated 6.3.1997 of the Delhi State Commission in Case No. A-170/1995 reversing the order dated 6.2.1995 passed by District Forum-I, Delhi. The brief facts are that the respondent No. 2 had a telephone installed at her premises on 23.4.1992. The telephone was however disconnected on 28.12.1992 on grounds of non-payment of the bill dated 1.10.1992 and a second bill dated 2.12.1992. The respondent went on corresponding with MTNL till 1st October, 1993, gave a legal notice on 22.2.1994, and when there was no response filed the petition before the District Forum on 24.5.1994. The respondent's case is that MTNL did not issue the bills and that no bill was received by her. The District Forum observed that it is for the consumer to enquire as to why he did not receive the bills in question. Further it observed that though the consumer obtained duplicate bills in the middle of 1993, she did not make the payment even then, and hence rejected the petition before it. The State Commission in appeal gave credence to the version of the consumer and reversed the decision of the District Forum.

(2.) The revision petitioner argued before us that there are important legal issues involved in this case, involving wider ramifications to the working of the MTNL. Since there is no common position on some of the facts, it is necessary to set out the versions of both the parties properly.

(3.) The case of the respondent No. 2 is that, a new telephone connection was given to her on 23.4.1992. This is admitted. Since no bills were received till July, 1992, the respondent says that she visited the concerned Telephone Exchange in July, 1992 and on enquiries was told that it takes upto a year to issue telephone bills in the case of a new connection. The telephone went dead in early August, 1992. The respondent lodged 5 complaints (No. 26 of 8.8.1992, 42 of 14.8.1992, 69 of 5.9.1992, 33 of 10.9.1992 and 70 of 22.9.1992) with the concerned Telephone Exchange and also visited the Exchange, but though promises were made that the phone would soon be set right, nothing has happened. Ultimately, when neither the phone was set right nor any bills received, she visited the office of the General Manager, MTNL sometime around September, 1993 when she obtained duplicate bills. Since the duplicate bills showed that rent was regularly being charged even though the phone was dead from August, 1992 onwards, she made a written complaint to MTNL on 1.10.1993 to correct the bills deducting the rent so that she could make the payment. As there was no response, she sent a legal notice on 22.2.1994 and then filed a case before the District Forum. She further alleges that she for the first time came to know that the telephone was disconnected (on 28.12.1992) only in December, 1994 when MTNL filed their reply before the District Forum.