RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No.2283 of 2004
Mohd. Nasir S/o Sri Shakir Ahmed,
R/o Shidi Sarai, Rajo Lane, Thana, Galshaeed,
District. Moradabad. … Appellant.
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Office at Moradabad through its
General Manager. ..Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri J.N. Sinha, Presiding Member.
2- Hon'ble Sri A.K. Bose, Member.
None appeared.
Date 29.4.2015
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member.- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.11.2003 passed by the Ld. DCDRF-II, Moradabad in Complaint Case No.306 of 2000, the appellant Sri Mohd. Nasir has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise he will suffer irreparable loss.
From the records, it transpires that the appeal was filed in the year 2004 but was not formally admitted for
(2)
disposal as it was prima-facie barred by limitation for over a year from the date of pronouncement of the judgment. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant did not pursue the appeal after filing the same and he or his counsel even stopped attending the Commission for the last several dates. Therefore, in view the provisions contained under Rule 8(6) of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 30(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we preferred to proceed with the appeal. Regulation 9(8) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 provides that all pending complaints, appeals and revision petitions which have not come up for admission till the date of commencement of this Regulation and are pending for admission for more than 21 days shall be listed immediately by the Consumer Forum for admissions and not later than 21 days from the date of commencement of this Regulation. Therefore, it is necessary to formally pass an order on the point of admission.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant/complainant Sri Mohd. Nasir R/o Shidi Sarai, Rajo Lane, Thana, Galshaeed, District. Moradabad obtained a telephone connection in his name bearing no.28300 in the month of June, 1992. Admittedly, he did not pay anything towards the call charges till 1992. It has been alleged that he received two bills, one for Rs.447.00 dated 29.9.1992 and the other for Rs.11,638.00 dated
(3)
24.1.1993 towards payment. According to him, these bills were wrong and, therefore, he filed complaint case no.62 of 1993 for redressal of his grievances. Subsequently, his Counsel informed him that the matter had been resolved in his favour and, therefore, he did not pursue the matter anymore. However, his telephone was disconnected subsequently and a Recovery Certificate for Rs.1,41,000.00 was issued against him in the month of October, 2000. Consequently, he filed complaint case no.306 of 2000 which was dismissed on merit on 3.11.2003. From perusal of the records, it further transpires that a similar complaint case bearing no.62 of 1993 (filed earlier) was meticulously concealed in the complaint case no.306 of 2000.
It may be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold in General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan and Anr., 2009 8 SCC 481 that Consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to deal with matters coming under Indian Telegraph Act in view of Section 7B of the Act. Thereafter, the matter was dealt with and the Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunication and I.T. vide Notification No.2-17/2013 Policy-1 dated 24.1.2014 intimated that the Consumer Fora are competent to deal with the disputes between the individual telecom consumers and Telecom Service Providers. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid notification, we are of the considered view that now the Consumer Fora have inherent jurisdiction to deal with matters under the Indian Telegraph Act.
(4)
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the Forum below, on the basis of facts, circumstances and evidence on records, held that the complainant had manufactured false and fabricated documents in support of his contentions in order to obtain favorable order. He had STD and ISD facilities on his telephone no.28300 and he did not pay anything towards the above facilities. It was also observed that there was no defect in the meter. The appellant/complainant did not deny the factum that the details of number given in the call details were never used by him. Furthermore, he did not make any complaint till the Recovery Certificate was issued against him. The impugned judgment and order is well discussed and is based on rulings laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in 1991(2) CPR 110 (NC). The judgment is based on facts, circumstances and evidence on record and there is no remiss in it and therefore, we are no inclined to interfere in the same. Complaint no.306 of 2000 was not maintainable after dismissal of complaint no.62 of 1993. Besides this, the bills related to the year 1992 and 1993 and the instant complaint was filed in the year 2000, hence it was prima-facie barred by the period of limitation as provided under Section 24A of the Act, 68 of 1986.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal. The impugned judgment and order is well discussed and passed on evidence on records. There no irregularity, illegality or remiss in the same and consequently, the appeal, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
(5)
ORDER
The appeal, being meritless, is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be provided to the parties as per rules.
(J.N. Sinha) (A.K. Bose)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri PA-II
Court No.4
