TARSEM LAL GOYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.1991 passed by the District Forum, Bathinda, in Complaint No.228 of 1991 under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "act'), the complainant has filed this appeal under Sec.15 of the Act. Perhaps at the outset it may be mentioned that we are somewhat seeptical whether the present appeal would at all lie under Sec.15 of the Act against the dismissal of a petition under Sec.27 of the Act?

(2.) The facts giving rise to the aforesaid issue lie in a narrow compass. During the course of hearing in complaints No.51 and 178 of 1991 filed by the complainant, the District Forum, Bathinda, passed the following two ad interim orders on 16.10.1991 : -"copy of the application has been given to the opposite party, who is directed to bring the bill of the telephone of the complainant for the month of September 1991 in this Court on 30.10.1991. " "issue notice to the opposite party for 10.12.1991. The respondents are directed to restore telephone connection of the complainant provided he has paid bills of the telephone. "

(3.) The complainant filed a complaint on 30.11.1991 before the District Forum, Bathinda, praying that the opposite parties be punished for contempt under Sec.27 of the Act for not complying with the afore-mentioned orders of the Forum meticulously inter alia on the grounds (1) that the Department had issued a duplicate bill for Rs.305/-, but that included Rs.100/- as reconnection fee for the telephone and (2) that he (complainant) made the payment of the bills on 2.11.1991, whereas the telephone connection was given to him on 19.11.1991, and thus there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Telephone Department in restoring his telephone connection. The District Forum after hearing the parties' Counsel found that no case of contempt was made out against the opposite parties, and dismissed the complaint on that score. Hence the appeal.