Per Mr. Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member :
With the consent of the parties, appeal was heard finally for disposal.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban, Bandra (hereinafter in short ’District Forum’) in consumer complaint No. 10/2006 (Mohammad M. Khan V/s The Manager, Tata Tele Services (Mah.) Ltd.), this appeal has been filed before this Commission. The District Forum, Bandra allowed the consumer complaint partially and directed appellant/opponent to pay `25,000/- to the respondent/complainant or to deposit with the District Forum as compensation and `2000/- as cost of the litigation within four weeks, failing which interest @ 9% is ordered to be paid after expiry of the period of four weeks.
3. Appellant has stated in the appeal that the District Forum, Bandra wrongly applied the ratio of judgement incase of Bank of Baroda V/s M/s Arvind Modern Dal and Rice Mill for awarding compensation. The respondent/complainnt defaulted to make payment of telephone bills. Therefore, telephone service was disconnected and on receipt of outstanding dues from the respondent/complainant, telephone connection was restored. Hence there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. Trial Court entertained complaint even though filed belatedly.
4. During the course of argument, it was admitted by the Ld. Advocate of the appellant that due to oversight, bill mentioning wrong telephone number was dispatched to the respondent/complainant and later on the mistake was rectified and bill for correct telephone number 56064947 was issued. On payment of bill, disconnected telephone service was restored. He further submitted that compensation of `25,000/- awarded by Forum below is disproportionate.
5. Admittedly, respondent/complainant was subjected to harassment to pay arrears of bill of wrong telephone number 56027371 which was never installed at the premises of respondent/complainant. Arrears of `5118/- were meant for wrong telephone No. 56027371 allegedly installed w.e.f. 16.10.2003 sent to respondent/complainant who is an advocate by profession. Telephone No. 56064947 was installed on insistence of appellant at the premises of respondent/complainant effective from January 2004. Even though respondent/complainant pointed out bill pertaining to wrong telephone number, the appellant again sent revised bill including arrears of wrong telephone No. 56027371 of `5118/-. This mistake was repeated second time, though appellant pointed out before dispatch of bill for month of February 2004. Respondent/complainant admittedly cleared the bill, yet outgoing facility was withdrawn in April 2004 by the appellant causing inconvenience to the respondent/complainant though this facility was restored subsequently.
6. The respondent/complainant, as can be traced from record was forced to file complainant in local police station against harassment by appellant since all his efforts including issue of legal notice to appellant for redressal of his grievance proved futile. For the fault of service on the part of appellant, the respondent/complainant was subjected to harassment and mental agony. Respondent/complainant is practicing advocate and withdrawal of telephone facility adversely affected his profession. The District Forum has considered this issue in right spirit and awarded compensation of `25,000/-. There is no reason to find fault with the findings of the District Forum.
7. Appellant, it appears did not press the point of limitation before District Forum and now touched upon this issue in appeal. As admitted by appellant in para 9 of the appeal memo, cause of action arose in April 2004 and consumer complaint was filed in January 2006 which is well within 2 years as provided under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the contention of appellant on point of limitation is not tenable.
8. Having considered this matter in its entirety, we find no merit in appeal. We hold accordingly and pass order as follow :
O R D E R
Appeal not admitted. Hence appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
Pronounced dated 18th October 2011.
