GOVIND RAM MITTAL Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed assailing the order of District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi dated 30.10.2001 passed in Complaint Case No.3157/2001 entitled Shri Govind Ram Mittal fs. MTNL.

(2.) The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had approached the learned District Forum with a Complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the grievance that the appellant is subscriber of two telephone Nos.7276877 and 7270984 installed at his premises. The telephone No.7276877 went out of order on 10.7.2000, and despite repeated complaints and personal visits, the defect in the said telephone was not rectified and the telephone in question continued to remain non-operational till 10.10.2000. Furthermore, despite the fact that the said telephone remained out of order from 16.7.2000 to 15.9.2000, respondent raised a bill inclusive of the rental charges and service charges for the said period.

(3.) The other telephone bearing No.7270984, also went out of order on 16.8.2000 and it was only after several oral and written complaints that the services in respect of the said telephone were restored on 2/3.9.2000. However, the same again became non-functional after two weeks. Therefore, the appellant got a legal notice served on the respondent, seeking rental rebate for the period the telephones in question remained non-functional. But since, there was no response from the respondents, the appellant was constrained to file a complaint before the District Forum praying for refund of the bill amount for the period 16.7.2000 to 15.9.2000 paid in respect of telephone No.776877 as well as bill dated 9.9.2000 raised in respect of telephone No.270984. The complainant also prayed for compensation of Rs.15,000/- together with cost of litigation.