MTNL Vs. UNIBROS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Complainant in this case had a telephonic connection with STD facility installed at Karol Bagh, New Delhi since 14.5.1990 with the average bill never exceeded Rs. 1,750 Suddenly OP/MTNL raised bill dated 9.3.2001 for an amount of Rs. 1,46,260, bill dated 9.4.2001 for an amount of Rs. 1,34,635 and bill dated 15.5.2001 for an amount of Rs. 92,365. The Complainant states that there was no internet connection and it is their small firm engaged in domestic oriented business and he never received the bill dated 9.3.2001. The Complainant sought quashing of these bills. As this was not acceded to, the Complainant filed a Complaint before Lok Adalat wherein MTNL offered to waive of 30% of the disputed bills.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY the Complainant filed a Complaint before District Forum which accepted the Complaint and ordered as follows:

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the Order of the District Forum MTNL filed an Appeal before the State Commission. Before the State Commission it was urged by the MTNL that RFA filed by MTNL is pending before the High Court of Delhi. Therefore the Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is barred by res judicata. The State Commission after traversing through several judgments came to the conclusion that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy and hence appeal was dimissed.