This appeal by OP NO.3-Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (hereinafter to be referred as TRAI) is directed against the orders dated 20.11.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in complaint bearing No.532/2008, as well as order dated 20.2.2009 passed in Misc. Application NO.1 of 2009 whereby application of OP NO.3 for clarification/review of order dated 20.11.2008 was dismissed. The complaint filed by Ms.Anuradha, respondent No.1(hereinafter to be referred as complainant) was allowed in the following terms ; (i) The OPs are directed to change the commitment plan 485 from the date the complainant applied for the same prior to August 2006. (ii) The OPs shall issue to the complainant break up details of the calls, call charges, total amount due from her and the amount deposited by her right from the installation of the telephone connection till date without payment of any charges. (iii) The entire account of the complainant shall be overhauled and if anything is due towards her, the same shall be paid in cash and if she is liable to pay anything the OPs would be competent to take appropriate action against her by debarring her incoming or outgoing calls or disconnecting the telephone. (iv) The OPs shall pay to the complainant Rs.500/- as costs of litigation. 2. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus ; The Complainant had opted for an economic plan of monthly rental tariff @ Rs.495/- p.m. wherein applicable usage charges were @ Rs.1.10 per call but OPs No. 1 and 2 deliberately raised the bill @ Rs.1.20 per call since beginning. On coming to know about the fraudulent acts of OPs, complainant visited their office and the fact of wrong billing was accepted by them and they assured to rectify the same and also to refund the amount wrongly charged. As a result, she was allowed not to deposit future bill till correct bill was raised by OPs but they deliberately prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other and did not refund the wrongly charged amount till July, 2006. The wrong bills continued to be raised every month and OPs instead of rectification, suddenly disconnected the telephone in July 2006. Complainant then took up the matter immediately with the OPs by writing letters, through phone and by sending e-mails, but her phone was kept disconnected. In August 2006, OPs informed orally about corrections having been made in their records and refund credited to the account of the Complainant, but still insisted for pending bill amount, upon which she sought complete details thereof vide e-mail dated 14.8.2006, followed by reminders. Finally, they made refund of Rs.11,607/- + Rs.1083.98P through bill for the month of August 2006 and still showed amount payable by Complainant as Rs.2141/-. The matter was again taken up for bills raised by OPs for the period phone was kept disconnected illegally to which they again refunded Rs.4441.41 through the bill for the month of October, 2006. The OPs were not providing details of amount of wrong billing and corrections done, so, complainant continued to follow up on phone and personally. OPs then again refunded Rs.1748/- through Bill for the month of July, 2007. The phone was also restarted after long time and without any payment as huge amount remained deposited with the OPs as advance throughout. It was further alleged that Complainant was still not provided breakup details of refunded amount by OP No. 1 and 2 through bills which still remained unexplained but OPs preferred to abruptly disconnect the phone in December, 2007 resulting her harassment and mental agony. OPs also kept a sum of Rs.6,000/- in October 2002 as interest bearing deposit but neither interest, nor the amount was paid by OPs despite repeated demands. Even the legal notice dated 10.11.2007 served upon OPs did not get any tangible result. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 3. Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs by the District Forum seeking their version of the case but despite service, none turned up on behalf of appellant/OP No.3, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte. However, respondents No.2 & 3 contested the complaint and filed reply before the District Forum controverting the allegations made therein. 4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in opening part of this judgment. Aggrieved against the said order, only OP No.3 has come up in this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Without going into any further details, suffice it to say that the learned counsel for appellant Ms. Jaishree Thakur has put forth her twofold arguments; at the first place she submitted that in fact no relief was sought against the appellant in the complaint. Secondly, the appellant is a statutory authority and not involving in any functioning of providing service to the complainant. In fact it were respondents No.2 & 3 who were the providers of service that too for consideration received from the complainant at the relevant time. These aforesaid submissions put forth on behalf of the appellant could not be rebutted by learned counsel for respondents. Even otherwise, from the facts of the case it is apparent that the complainant in her complaint had alleged deficiency in service only on the part of respondents No.2 & 3 who are service providers. There is no relief sought against the appellant. Besides that, there were no allegations of any deficiency in service on its part. 6. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 20.11.2008 whereby appellant was also held liable for litigation costs of Rs.500/- alongwith respondents No.2 & 3 is unsustainable. Therefore, same is hereby set aside qua appellant. However, rest of the directions given in the impugned order against respondents No.2 & 3 are maintained. The order dated 20.2.2009 passed by the learned District Forum in Miscellaneous application No.1 of 2009 does not suffer from any legal infirmity as it does not have any powers to review its own order. Accordingly the same is upheld. 7. In the result, the impugned order dated 20.11.2008 stands modified, as indicated above and consequently appeal filed by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India succeeds. In the facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
