UNION OF INDIA Vs. DHANJIBHAI K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the Union of India represented by the Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot against the judgment of the State Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad allowing First Appeal No. 57 of 1991 by setting aside the order of the District Forum and directing the Telephone Department, Rajkot to issue fresh bills to the respondent herein based on "average of bills of previous six months" and to refund to the Complainant the excess amount, if any, found to have been realised from him.

(2.) IN the complaint petition filed before the District Forum, the grievance put forward by the Complainant (respondent herein) pertained to the two billing periods from 26.2.1990 to 25.4.1990 and from 26.4.1990 to 25.6.1990. According to the Complainant, he had been served with exhorbitant bills for sums of Rs. 2,112/- and Rs. 1,122/- respectively for the said two billing periods even though he had actually made only very few calls from his telephone No. 33374. It was the Complainant's case that he had reason to believe that during certain periods when his telephone was found to be dead the line had been diverted and wrongfully connected with the telephones of one Chimanbhai Maganbhai Patel and one Jyoti Guest House, with the result that there was misuse of his telephone leading to the possibility of huge bills. Since the complaint made by him to the General Manager, Telephones had not brought forth any useful result, he had approached the District Forum seeking the relief of refixing the amount of the bills based on the average number of calls made during the previous six months in which case the bill for each billing period would work out only to Rs. 350/-. The District Forum, after considering the evidence adduced in the case, held that the Complainant had miserably failed to establish any of the allegations made against the Opposite Party and hence he was not entitled to be granted any relief.

(3.) IT may be mentioned that before approaching this Commission with this Revision Petition, the revision petitioner herein had filed Civil Application No. 4 of 1993 before the State Commission praying for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 30.11.1992 by disputing the correctness of the postal endorsement that the notice had been refused by the Accounts Officer. That application was dismissed by the State Commission by an order dated 29th July, 1993, wherein the plea taken by the Department that the notice had not been refused by the Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot was rejected by the State Commission. It was pointed out in the order that the party who had figured as the respondent before the District Forum was the Union of India represented by the Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot and the said officer had also entered appearance before the District Forum and made his submissions. The notice of the appeal issued by the office of the State Commission was correctly addressed to the Union of India. Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot but nevertheless the said notice was received back with the postal endorsement that it was refused by the addressee when it was presented for delivery at the Office of the Accounts Officer, Rajkot Telephones, Rajkot. The State Commission did not see any reason to doubt the correctness of the endorsement made on the postal envelope containing the notice. In view of the said finding of fact and also on the further ground that the Consumer Protection Act does not provide for any review or any order which had been already passed, the State Commission rejected the aforesaid application made by the Department.