None appears for either of the parties. Since the matter is of the year 2003, this Commission is inclined to dispose of the matter on the materials available on record.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has got two telephones bearing Nos. 70070 an 70239 but the OP served a bill for the telephone No.70139 which does not stand in the name of his wife. When the complainant objected, the OP threatened for disconnection of all the telephone lines. So the complaint was filed by the complainant.

4.      The OPs did not appear and has been set ex parte. The OPs/appellants have taken plea in the appeal memo that the dispute is for the telephone bearing No. 70139 which was working in the name of Bijayalaxmi Sahu before installation of new 128 part C. Dot Exchange. Since from 128 part C. Dot Exchange the telephone bearing No. 70139 has been changed to 70239 on account of technical reason, as such the bill for 70139 for the period before change of number has been issued. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

5.      After hearing both parties the learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx                                          

We direct the OPs to pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) to the complainant for compensation to the complainant which will carry an interest of 12% from the date or other till realization. Hence, the complaint  is partly allowed.”

6.      It is specifically pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant that they have entrusted to one Chandan Kumar Pradhan, advocate to defend the case but Sri Pradhan did not take action for which they were set ex parte. Since there are lapses on the part of the lawyer and the OPs have not remained absent deliberately, the OPs should be allowed to participate in the hearing and the case should be disposed of on merit. Learned District Forum has not considered all these facts. However, learned District Forum has passed illegal impugned order by allowing the complaint on the ground that it has not considered the previous telephone number corresponding to present number. If the matter is remanded OPs  would be able to convince more to the learned District Forum. Hence, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by remanding the matter.

7.      Perused the appeal memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants and the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      The complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

9.      It is admitted fact that the complainant got the bill for telephone no.70139 which he has not used. It is  complained before the OPs but no action was taken. On the other hand, the OPs have taken plea in the appeal memo that the old No.70139 has been renumbered as 70239 which stands in the name of Bijayalaxmi Sahu who happens to be the wife of the complainant. Unless the OP is given  opportunity to place the material about the change of the telephone numbers, the case cannot be disposed of on merit. It is a matter of 2003 but for the lapses of the lawyer, the party should not be allowed to suffer.

10.    In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed by remanding the matter to the learned District Forum with a direction to dispose of the matter within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Issue the copy of this order by post to the learned District Forum.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.