ORDER <br /> <br /> By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. The case of the complainant is that on 24-1-2004 he applied for telephone connection to his residence by paying Rs.500/- to opposite party. That his opposite party has allotted connections to his neighbours overlooking priority. On 17-5-2007 he was issued a telephone bill even without giving telephone connection. He prays for a direction to opposite party to give connection and for compensation.<br /> 2. Opposite party has not filed version. IA-105/07 was filed by opposite party to stop all further proceedings in the matter in hand till disposal of SLP-18409/03 pending before Honourable Supreme Court. It was contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case.<br /> 3. Evidence in this case consists of the affidavits filed by both sides. Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant. No documents marked on the side of opposite party. No oral evidence adduced by either sides.<br /> 4. The points that arise for consideration are (i) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint? (ii) Whether opposite party has committed any deficiency in service? (iii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> 5. Point (i):- No version was filed on the side of opposite party. I.A.No.105/07 was filed to stay further proceedings till the disposal of the SLP-18409/03 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Complainant who was personally present has not filed any counter in this petition. Since I.A.No.105/07 is a petition disputing the jurisdiction of this Forum to try the case we thought it better to consider it along with the complaint. According to the counsel for opposite party the decision reported in 2003 (1) KLT 817 is stayed by the above order and therefore the decision in 2000(2) KLT 195 is revived/restored. Though in the memo it is stated that copy of the diary extract is produced in an earlier case, in fact an unclear, unreadable unattested copy was produced in an earlier case. Even after repeated directions to produce a clear/readable copy counsel for opposite party has failed to comply with the direction for one reason or the other. So we are unaware as to the contents of the diary extract. With all respects to the Honourable Apex Court and higher judiciary we proceed to discuss our view regarding the question of jurisdiction as disputed by opposite party.<br /> 6. We do not agree with the counsel for opposite party for the reason that the stay if any is applicable only to the order that is appealed against. We consider that what is stayed in SLP18409/03 on 29-11-2004 is the execution of the ultimate direction in that case and the law declared is certainly binding on us till it is held as overruled. In the order dated 29-11-2004 in SLP 18409/03 there was no discussion or finding as to the correct position of law. A perusal of the order shows that it is an interim order passed till the disposal of the case. We brought to the notice of counsel for opposite party that cases against BSNL(Telephone matters) are being decided by Hon'ble National Com mission as is evident from the various decisions reported in the consumer journals. This was controverted by the counsel for opposite party. He submitted that the stay is applicable only to the State of Kerala. District Forum being subordinate to the National Commission is bound to follow the decision of the Apex Commission. It was also submitted by the counsel for opposite party that by the order of stay in SLP 18409/03 the position of law rendered in 2000(20 KLT 195 is revived/restored. We find it difficult to accept this argument of counsel for opposite party Sri.P.Harikumar. If this submission is to be accepted then courts will find it difficult to apply any reported ruling since the court will have to search and find out whether there is any stay in existence.<br /> 7. Complainant who appeared in person contended that as per the TRA1 (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) directions published in newspaper on 14-5-2006 it is stated that telephone consumers can approach the Consumer Forum for redressal of their grievances. The newspaper cutting is produced and marked as Ext.A7. Counsel for opposite party made a submission that the cases against Telecom., BSNL can be kept in abeyance before this Forum till the final disposal of SLP 18409/03 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consumer Protection Act provides a time limit of 90 days to dispose a case. Although this time limit is not mandatory; to keep the cases pending indefinitely would be doing injustice to the complainants. Especially consumer Forum being an authority which allows parties to appear and litigate in person without the help of lawyers; it would cause much hardships to them if the cases are kept pending indefinitely. I.A.No.105/07 is filed to stay all further proceedings and keep this case in abeyance till the disposal of SLP-18409/03. Consumer Protection Act provides a time limit of 90 days to decide and dispose a case. Although this time limit is not mandatory, to keep the cases pending indefinitely would be doing injustice to the complainants. Especially Forum being an authority which allows and encourages parties to appear and litigate in person without the help of lawyers; it would cause much hardships to the litigants may lose their interest and abandon the matter. In I.A.No.105/07 opposite party also prays to apply the decision reported in KLT 2000(2) 1956 and dismiss the case.<br /> 8. With all respects to the Apex Court, and humbly submitting ourselves to the rule of 'Stare decosis' we are of the view that when a position of law is declared it is binding until it is discussed and overruled. We hold that the rule laid in General Manager, Telecom., BSNL Vs. Krishnan 2003(1) KLT 817 (F.B.) is still in force and therefore this Forum has jurisdiction to try this complaint. This point found in favour of the complainant.<br /> 9. Point (ii):- Complainant alleges that telephone connections were provided to others overlooking his priority. In the affidavit filed on 30-11-2007 he affirms that on 9-8-2007 he was provided with connection. So this relief claimed in the complaint has been satisfied. Even though he alleges that opposite party has provided connections to others overlooking his priority complainant has not adduced any evidence to establish this contention. Complainant is further aggrieved that without providing telephone connection. Opposite party has issued a bill for Rs.1168/- dated, 7-5-2007 which is Ext.A2. It is admitted by opposite party that the said bill was issued by mistake. Opposite party is also ready to cancel the bill. In the counter affidavit the allegations are refuted that the complainant has unnecessarily caused the litigation and that opposite party was ready to cancel the bill if complainant made a written request. The evidence tendered in the affidavit is not supported by any pleadings since opposite party has not filed by version. Further even after receiving the notice of the complaint, opposite party has not issued any communication to complainant informing him that the bill is cancelled. The act of opposite party in issuing Ext.A2 bill and not cancelling it on receiving information from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. We hold that complainant is entitled to have Ext.A2 bill cancelled.<br /> <br /> 10. In the result, complaint is allowed and we order that Ext.A2 bill for Rs.1168/- dated, 7-5-2007 is cancelled. In the circumstances opposite party is ordered to pay cost of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) to the complainant.<br /> <br /> Dated this 8th day of January, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3<br /> Ext.A1 : Registration intimation received from opposite party <br /> to complainant.<br /> Ext.A2 : Bill dated, 7-5-2007 issued by opposite party to complainant <br /> for the period from 20-3-2007 to 30-4-2007.<br /> Ext.A3 : Bill dated, 7-7-2007 issued by opposite party to complainant <br /> for the period from 1-5-2007 to 30-6-2007.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br />