Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                This appeal was lying unattended since 2003.  Appellant had not taken circulation who had filed the appeal.  As per policy of this Commission this appeal was placed before us on 4^th July, 2011 for passing first order.  As per policy of this Commission the notice was also published on the internet.  Copy of the same was displayed on the notice board of this Commission.  On finding that both the parties were absent we adjourned the said appeal to 9^th August, 2011, directing office to issue notice on delay condonation application to both the parties.  On 9^th August, 2011 since notice was sent to both the parties and no acknowledgement was received from the postal authority, we adjourned this appeal for today.  Today also both the parties are absent.   Hence, we have proceeded to decide the appeal on merit.

(2)                We perused the appeal memo and impugned order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.190/1999 on 30^th October, 2002.  The Complainant had filed consumer complaint against B.S.N.L., Kalyan, District Thane, alleging deficiency in service on its part.  Said complaint was disposed of by District Forum by passing judgement and order on 03.02.2001.  However,  said order was modified then on 30.10.2002 and Opponent was directed to restore telephone connection of telephone No.501137. Again this order was modified on 18.03.2001 and B.S.N.L. was asked to submit report about what steps were taken by B.S.N.L. on the order passed by the District Forum previously. This was placed for hearing and after hearing the Complainant and B.S.N.L. the District Forum observed that the Complainant had not paid the bills of the B.S.N.L.  Despite the fact that he was given due rebate Complainant had not paid the bills up-to-date and therefore, the District Forum by order dated 30.10.2002 passed additional order as corrigendum  to the previous order passed on 03.02.2001 and directed that Opponent shall restore telephone connection of Complainant telephone no.501132, if Complainant has paid all the bills.  Aggrieved by this order the Complainant has filed this appeal.

(3)                Since both the parties are absent, we perused the impugned order and  we are finding that the order in question is perfectly correct.  As the Appellant was in arrears of bills he has to pay the bills then only telephone connection could be restored.  Passing of any order in previous modification of order is just and proper and it cannot be said that the District Forum committed an error of law in directing Appellant to clear the arrears of outstanding bills, as a pre-condition for restoration of telephone connection which was disconnected on finding that the consumer was not paying the bills.  Said order, in our view, is just and proper and cannot be said to be illegal on whatsoever ground.  The appeal is as such liable to be dismissed.  Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)              Appeal stands dismissed.

       (ii)              No order as to costs.

     (iii)              Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounce don 7^th October, 2011.