GEETA DEVI Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is filed by the Complainant, Smt.Geeta Devi, against the order dated 12.08.2004 passed in Appeal No.A-418/97. Brief facts of the case are: The points that arose for discussion in this Revision Petition are

(2.) FEELING aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a complaint in District Forum, Tis Hazari, Delhi for deficiency in service on the part of MTNL. The District Forum by their order dated 8.12.1995 ordered that telephone connection be restored and to issue corrected bill. Thereafter the bill was paid immediately, but the Telephone Department took 27 days to restore it. Thereafter, it appears that the case has been transferred to District Forum No.4, Nandnagri, Delhi. By their order dated 11.6.1997, District Forum, Nandnagri, held that charging rent from 31st March, 1994, although it was energized only on 22.4.1994 and also that during the period 28th May, 1994 to 27th June, 1994, when the telephone was out of order, MTNL was unjustified in charging the same. Compensation of Rs.500/- and cost of litigation of Rs.500/- was allowed by the same order.

(3.) SHE claimed that she paid an amount of Rs.400/- bi-monthly as telephone rental charges starting from February 1995 to February 1996 when her phone was disconnected. She contended that Respondent allegedly disconnected her phone on the basis of non-payment of wrong bills allegedly raised by the Respondent and that during the period from 6.2.1995 to 20.4.1995, the Respondent should not charge rent on her disconnected phone. We agree with her contention. Learned Counsel for the Respondent vehemently argued that they have complied with the order of the District Forum immediately and that the Complainant is continuing her litigation after having received rebate, compensation and cost in 1997 itself. It is evident that the Petitioner's claim of telephone rental charges for the months during the year 1995 is not considered by both the fora. It is open to her to come in Revision when the issue raised by her has not been dealt with in the lower fora. Mere admission of two of her grievances does not shut doors for the Complainant in agitating the remaining claim which has not been considered at all in lower fora.