S PRAKASH Vs. S D O PHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated September 26, 1991 panned by the State Commission, Lucknow allowing Appeal No. 70/SC/91 filed before it by the first respondent herein - S.D.O. (Phones), Rampur Garden Bareilly - and setting aside the order of the District Forum, Bareilly dated January 19,1989 allowing the complaint petition filed by the revision petitioner to the extent of directing the opposite party to adjust the excess amount of Rs. 282.80 demanded in two telephone bills against two other pending bills due by the complainant and to collect Rs. 2.20 from the complainant in full and final settlement of the latter bills and thereafter to restore the complainant's telephone connection immediately.

(2.) The revision petitioner who was the complainant in the case had approached the District Forum with the grievance that certain telephone bills served on her were incorrect and excessive and that the action taken by the respondent in disconnecting her telephone on the ground of nonpayment of the excess amount was illegal and improper. The District Forum, Bareilly after hearing both sides passed an order substantially upholding the contentions of the complainant and issuing the directions aforementioned to the opposite party.

(3.) The first respondent herein (opposite party in the complaint) challenged the other of the District Forum by filing Writ Petition No. 1213 of 1989 before the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). In that Writ Petition the Department challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum to adjudicate upon the dispute concerning telephone bills and questioned the maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, the points taken being that a telephone subscriber is a not a 'consumer' and the service rendered by the Central Government through it Telecommunications Department is not a "service" to which the Act applies. In addition to these technical points the order was also challenged on the merits. The High Court by its judgment dated February 5,1990 rejected all the contentions raised by the Department and dismissed the Writ Petition. While doing so, the High Court expressly upheld the order passed by the District Forum and confirmed it on the merits also as per paragraph 13 of its judgment, which reads as follows: