MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. N H BADLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 26. 4. 2006 of State Commission, Delhi allowing appeal against the order dated 30. 1. 2006 of a District Forum with direction to the petitioner/opposite party to allow rebate w. e. f. 1. 8. 2003 to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) PURSUANT to the order dated 4. 5. 2007 the petitioner has filed the affidavit of S. Prasad, A. G. M. (Marketing) and the advertisements published on 3. 7. 2004, 7. 7. 2004, 6. 7. 2004 and 5. 1. 2005 in different newspapers.

(3.) RESPONDENT has submitted that he being a senior citizen is entitled to rebate in tariff of telephone from 1. 8. 2003. On the other hand, Ms. Leena Tuteja for the petitioner has pointed out that the respondent had applied for rebate in tariff on 9. 1. 2005 and he was allowed rebate from the next billing cycle. Under the scheme of rebate for senior citizens as published in the newspapers filed along with said affidavit, for availing rebate a senior citizen has to submit the identity proof in addition to affidavit that he does not have any other telephone connection in his name under that scheme. Obviously, rebate is not automatic or retrospective and is subject to completing the above formalities. Since the respondent had completed the formalities on 9. 1. 2005 he cannot claim rebate from 5. 12. 2006. Decision in R. P. No. 2722/2005, MTNL v. A. C. Aggarwal, I (2007) CPJ 41 (NC) is of no help to the petitioner as that petition considering the small amount involved was dismissed without examining the merits of the case. Order of State Commission being legally erroneous deserves to be set aside.