K C JAISWAL Vs. TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order we will decide two applications seeking restoration of two different revision petitions. Only common thing is the Counsel, in one revision petition he is the petitioner himself (Revision Petition No. 1073/1999) and in the other he is Counsel for the petitioner (Revision Petition No. 1079/1999). Revision Petition No. 1073/1999

(2.) This revision petition pertains to excess telephone billing of the petitioner-complainant. Though he succeeded before the District Forum in the complaint filed by him to some extent, in the appeal filed by the opposite party before the State Commission, the order of the District Forum was set aside. As a matter of fact petitioner also filed appeal for enhancement which was also dismissed. State Commission found that there was no excessive telephone bills and that petitioner already approached the Telephone Adalat which held that the bills were not excessive. It was also found that the petitioner went to the Accounts Officer of the Telephone Department and the matter was discussed with him. Petitioner was also allowed four equal monthly instalments. All these facts petitioner did disclose in his complaint. State Commission also on facts found that it could not be held that the bills were in any way excessive.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission petitioner filed revision petition before this Commission. He was given notice of the hearing for 4.12.2000 when a telegram was received from him and the case was adjourned. Again notice was sent to him by registered post but he failed to appear on the date fixed when the petition was dismissed in default. In his application for restoration it was not denied that notice sent by registered post was not received by him. The only plea taken by him is that he did not receive the information. It is not disputed that the notice was sent to his correct address. We do not find it is a fit case to allow such type of application. The application for restoration is dismissed. Even otherwise, we do not find it is a fit case to exercise on jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Revision Petition No. 1079/1999