MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. K K ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellants under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against order dated 5th December, 2000, passed by District Forum - VII, Sheik Sarai, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.357/2000 - entitled Kay Kay Electronics (Regd.) and Anr. V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Anr.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, beiefly stated, are that respondent No.2, Mr. Avtar Krishan, in his capacity as sole proprietor of respondent No.1, had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that respondent No.1 was a subscriber in respect of telephone, bearing No.5799388, installed at his shop situated at WZ-396, Naraina Village, New Delhi. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that telephone bills in respect of the above said telephone always had been below Rs.500/- except the bill dated 16th December, 1999, which was for Rs.9,970/-. It was stated that there was no STD facility in the said telephone and the above said bill was unduly on the higher side. It was alleged that the respondent had approached the functionaries of the appellant to correct that bill, but no action on the complaint/representations of the repondent was taken by the functionaries of the appellant, who instead of correcting the bill, disconnected the telephone in question. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, it was prayed by the respondent, in the complaint filed by the respondents, that the appellants be directed to restore the above telephone connection and be also directed to correct the above said bill, so that payment thereof could be made by the respondents.

(3.) The claim of the respondents in the District Forum was resisted by the appellants and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellants, it was stated that the bill for Rs.9,970/- was not on the higher side and had been raised on actual consumption basis, so recorded by the metering equipment of the telephone in question. It was also denied that there was no STD facility on the said telephone. It was stated that on receipt of complaint/representations from the end of the respondents, the matter was enquired into and no defect was found. It was stated that the complaint, filed by the respondents, was liable to be rejected.