Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) Both parties are remaining absent in spite of intimation published on notice board of this Commission as well as on internet and further by way of abundant precaution intimation of the date given by post on 29.09.2011. Advocate Mr.Masurkar, who represents the Appellant is one of the Advocates who regularly appears in this Commission. But, he is remaining absent in this matter since long. In the circumstances, we prefer to consider the appeal on merit for admission.
(2) This appeal stakes an exception to an order dated 03.12.2004 passed in Consumer Complaint No.19/2003, Harunkhan Dilawarkhan Pathan V/s District Telecom, through its Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Satara, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (‘the Forum’ in short).
(3) The consumer complaint pertains to giving telephone bills for 10 months at one time and thus, deficiency in service on the part of the department. The Forum upheld the case of the Complainant for the alleged deficiency in service and further found that due to such practice adopted on behalf of the institution by sending 10 bills for one time the Complainant had unnecessarily had to suffer anxiety and therefore, for mental torture awarded compensation of `2,500/- and `500/- towards costs. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the department has preferred this appeal.
(4) In the given circumstances, supra, we find no reason to take different view than what has been taken by the Forum. The department was under obligation to regularly issue the bills and suddenly demanding such bills of 10 months at one time amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the department.
(5) Apart from that, it appears that appeal is preferred by the department feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, belatedly and therefore, application for condonation of delay seeking to condone the delay of 61 days has been filed. It is alleged that the administration, on receipt of the copy of the order on 07.01.2005, had taken steps to file appeal and therefore, the delay occurred. Reasons given are quite vague, no particulars of such administrative delay given and as such, we find they do not offer any satisfactory explanation.
(6) For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) The Misc.Application No.918/2005 filed for condonation of delay stands rejected.
(ii) In the result appeal is not entertained.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 6th January, 2012.
