UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint against the respondent BSNL, alleging deficiency in service by the latter.

(2.) VERY briefly facts leading to filing the complaint were that the petitioner who is a practising Advocate, applied for telephone connection, while at Bokaro, after depositing a sum of Rs. 1,000 on 27. 4. 1993. He was provided telephone No. 6951 which according to the petitioner/complainant had an STD facility, whereas he has asked for telephone without STD facility. Subsequently he applied for shifting telephone from Bokaro to Patna. The telephone was installed in Patna only after a gap of six months. In between several bills were raised which according to the petitioner were wrong; even though he paid some of them. It was his case that these were wrongly raised bills, thus, alleging deficiency in service on account of providing STD facility when he did not ask for it, delay in shifting the telephone and raising wrong bills, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint only to the extent of refund of Rs. 2,415 by the respondent to the petitioner. Both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission and both of them were dismissed by the State Commission after hearing the parties. It is in these circumstances that a revision petition has been filed before us by the petitioner/complainant mainly seeking following reliefs:

(3.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties and find that the District Forum has dealt extensively with the first point, i. e. , with regard to the bill of Rs. 3,715. Both the lower Fora also observed, in our view correctly, that Rs. 1,000 had already been refunded to the petitioner vide cheque No. AF/185538 dated 13. 5. 1999 amounting to Rs. 1,792, which also comprise refund of security money deposited by the petitioner at Bokaro on 29. 4. 1993.