RAKESH JAIN Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, filed under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against order dated 25.5.1999, passed by District Forum-V, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.348/98 entitled, Mr. Rakesh Jain V/s. Mahanagar Telephonoe Nigam Ltd.

(2.) The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum with the grievance that he had applied for a telephone connection on 23.2.1987 and thereafter on 23.1.1993, he was informed that the telephone had been sanctioned in his favour by the respondent. However, since on account of some personal difficulties, the appellant was unable to have the telephone installed, he requested the respondent to keep the said telephone in safe custody. Thereafter, on 6.9.1993, the appellant requested for the installation of the said telephone at his premises but despite best efforts was unable to get the telephone connection. However, on 5.3.1994, the appellant learnt that the telephone in question was installed and working at a different premises i. e.32, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. The said information was duly conveyed by the appellant to the Dy. General Manager of the respondent. Despite that, it was only on 14.7.1994 that the telephone in question was installed at the premises of the appellant at 24, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, and though it was a new connection, an old telephone instrument was given to the appellant. It was further stated by the appellant that in the meanwhile the officials of the concerned department of the respondent had been contacting him for signing some papers relating to the shifting of the telephone which he had declined to sign and it was with great difficulty that the telephone in question was made operational for the first time on 19.7.1994. Thereafter the appellant received a bill for Rs.2,467/-, on 29.7.1994, for the period the telephone connection in question was installed and working at another premises. As the appellant refused to pay the said bill, the telephone connection of the appellant was disconnected on 18.8.1994 on account of non- payment of the aforesaid bill. Accordingly, the appellant preferred a complaint before the District Forum praying for the redressal of his grievances.

(3.) In the reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, the defence of the respondent was that on account of a bona fide mistake, the telephone in question had been installed at another premises, as the name of the person in whose name, the telephone was installed was also Rakesh Jain and the mistake had occurred on account of the said fact. However, as soon as it came to the notice of the respondent that the telephone had been installed at the wrong premises, the same was shifted to the premises of the appellant and as such there was no deficiency in service on its part. As regards the disconnection of the telephone in question was concerned, it was stated that the same was disconnected on account of non-payment of bill for Rs.2,467/- by the appellant.