Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant got telephone connection No.26188 at her residence, which is at a distance of 3 Kms. from the city.  It is alleged in the complaint that after she applied for the telephone connection, number of hurdles were created by the officials of the department in giving the connection.  After installation, the petitioner sent the bill only once and thereafter, no bill was sent and the telephone was disconnected.  Complaints made by the respondent in the office of the petitioner went unheard, which forced the petitioner to file a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.1,000/-.  Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed.  Order of the District Forum was set aside and Rs.1,5000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs to be paid within two months from the date of passing of the order, failing which, the petitioner was made liable to pay interest at the rate of 10%.  State Commission, in its order, held that the petitioner had failed to send the bills to the respondent and directed the petitioner to furnish the copies of the unpaid bills to the respondent within 7 days of the passing of the order and to restore the telephone connection within 3 days of the payment of the amount.  State Commission, in para-6 and 7 of its order, has recorded the following finding :

“6. The respondents have not stated how the bills were sent to the complainant nor produced any acknowledgement or even dispatch register.  It is also noted that after disconnection, none of the letter of the complainant was replied.  She was not provided a duplicate bill although the written requests duly acknowledged is on record.  The total amount of the 2 unpaid bills leading to disconnection (bill dated 11.12.2000 and 11.2.2001 for Rs.269 and Rs.220/- respectively) leading to disconnection is Rs.489/- for a period of 4 months.  We cannot conceive of any reason for the complainant not paying such meager amount despite receiving the bills.  In view of the background that the complainant obtained the phone connection after a long drawn battle and despite resistance of the respondents she was least likely to incur the risk of disconnection by not paying the bills.

 7. Moreover the amount of the bills appears to be for merely rent of the phone.  This proves the contention of the complainant that she was unable to use the phone for the reasons of its remaining out of order most of the time.  The stand taken by the respondent that no complaint is on record cannot be believed got for the simple reason that the records are maintained by the respondent and the consumer has no way of knowing whether the complaint is recorded or not.”

          A perusal of the same shows that the petitioner in fact had not sent the bills to the respondent.   Finding recorded is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction.  Counsel for the petitioner could not refute any of the findings recorded by the State Commission in its order.  Dismissed.