MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs GHANSHYAM BANSAL

THE appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') challenging the order of the District Forum-I dated 27.7.1999 in Complaint Case No. 1809/98 - entitled Shri Ghanshyam Bansal v. M.T.N.L.

THE relevant facts, in brief are, that the respondent/complainant was the subscriber of telephone 7516791, installed at his residence. THE above telephone of the respondent remained out of order from 1.10.1995 to 15.12.1995 and again from 25.5.1998 till 27.8.1998 and had been lying dead since 3.9.1998 till the filing of the complaint in the District Forum by the respondent. Despite repeated complaints and requests of the respondent in that regard, the appellant/MTNL failed to set right the telephone of the respondent. THE respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the appellant/MTNL to set aside the demand of Rs. 5,795.37 and Rs. 588.84 raised by appellant/M.T.N.L. vide bills dated 16.7.1998 and 16.9.1998 respectively and to further grant a rebate of 800 calls. It was also prayed that the respondent be awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss of business and another sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards harassment and injury suffered by him. In its reply/written version filed before the District Forum, the appellant/MTNL controverted the allegations of the respondent and took a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint filed by the respondent, on the ground that the same was barred by time. On merits, it was stated by the appellant that the bill for the billing cycle 16.7.1998 amounting to Rs. 5,795/- had already been revised after the respondent had approached the Lok Adalat and that the amount of the said bill had been now reduced to Rs. 936/- only, on the basis of past average. It was further stated in the written version/reply that the respondent had failed to pay the abovesaid revised bill for Rs. 936/- as well as other bills dated 16.9.1998 for Rs. 589/- and bill dated 16.11.1998 for Rs. 399/- and, therefore, the telephone of the respondent was disconnected on account of non-payment of bills, on 2.9.1998.

The learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent vide impugned order dated 27.7.1999 with directions to the appellant/MTNL to issue revised bill for the billing cycle 16.7.1998 by giving a rebate of 3490 calls in the same if the said rebate had not been given so far; to give a rent rebate to the respondent/complainant from 1.7.1998 to 31.7.1998; and not to charge any rent from the complainant from 3.9.1998 till the restoration of the telephone; to intimate to the respondent the amount which he has to pay after complying with the above directions and to restore the telephone of the respondent/complainant after the said amounts have been deposited. The learned District Forum also granted compensation of Rs. 3,000/- alongwith Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation in favour of the respondent.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the appellant/MTNL has filed the present appeal accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. We have gone through the documents/material placed on record, as well as, have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties. The present appeal has been filed beyond the statutory period of 30 days prescribed in terms of Section 15 of the Act. The impugned order was passed on 27.7.1999 and duly received by the appellant on 29.7.1999, whereas, the present appeal has been filed only on 18.10.1999. The reasons assigned by the appellant for the delay in filing the present appeal are stated in the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant. On perusing the same, it comes to fore, that the certified copy of the impugned order after being received on 29.7.1999, was put up before the AGM (Legal) after 20 days on 19.8.1999, who after over a week forwarded the same to AGM, Legal (HQ) on 27.8.1999. Thereafter, the said file with the impugned order was put up before the Joint General Manager (Legal) after a lapse of over a month on 4.10.1999. Further, though the file reached the concerned Counsel for the appellant on 8.10.1999, the appeal was actually filed on 18.10.1999, i.e. after a delay of further 10 days. The above narration itself reveals the total apathy and laches on the part of the officials of the appellant MTNL which in no way can be termed as ''sufficient cause'' so as to call for our indulgence in condoning the delay of about 47 days.

WE are fortified in our above view by a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported as AIR 1998 SC 2276. In the abovesaid decision the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held : "The High Court does not appear to have examined the reply filed by the appellant as reference to the same is conspicuous by its absence from the order. WE are not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, any explanation, much less a reasonable or satisfactory one, had been offered by the respondent-State for condonation of the inordinate delay of 565 days. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained."(Emphasis supplied) And the Hon''ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Jammu and Kashmir v. Smt. Ram Kali, reported as AIR 1987 Jammu and Kashmir 71, while considering the question whether the norms for condonation of delay should be different for Government or a Statutory Body as compared to an individual, has held : "The delay in this case has accrued as the matter was referred to the Law Department and the office of the Executive Engineer, Chenani Hydel Project who is dealing with the case and the Government Office such as, Law Department, etc. were also at Srinagar and the matter being in rotation through proper channels took time. In our opinion, the abovesaid explanation without mentioning the specific days and the reason for delay explaining each day of delay is no cause at all much less as sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the revision or an appeal within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. WE are, therefore, in full agreement with the ratio of the authority of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, AIR 1973 AP 43 (supra), and hold that no exception is made for the Government in the matter of condonation of delay which is not satisfactorily explained in terms of the Act."

(Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decisions, and the reasons for condonation of delay assigned in its application by the appellant/M.T.N.L. we are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been assigned by the appellant for the condonation of delay and as such the present appeal being barred by limitation is not maintainable in law. Even on merits, the case of the appellant is devoid of merit. The main contention of the appellant in this appeal is that the telephone of the respondent was disconnected on account of non-payment of bills dated 16.7.1998, 16.9.1998 and 16.11.1998. As has been admitted by the appellant itself that the bill dated 16.7.1998 was revised and reduced to the amount of Rs. 936/-, it has nowhere been mentioned in the body of the appeal as to on which date the same was revised and issued to the respondent. As such, the said revised bill could have only been paid on the receipt of the same and after having been afforded a sufficient opportunity to pay the same. It is also the admitted case of the appellant that the telephone in question was disconnected on 2.9.1998 whereas, it claims that the bills which were sent to the respondent after the disconnection, have not been paid, i.e. bills dated 16.9.1998 and 16.11.1998, therefore, the telephone could not have been disconnected for non-payment of bills subsequent to the disconnection. In view of the said anomaly, arising out of the contentions raised by the appellant itself, the said ground of appeal raised by the appellant is unsustainable in law. The other contention raised by the appellant in the present appeal, is that since the respondent had already approached the Telephone Adalt for the revision of the bill dated 16.7.1998, the respondent was barred from approaching the FORA under the Act for a similar relief. It has, however, been categorically denied by the respondent that he ever approached the Telephone Lok Adalat for the revision of the said bill dated 16.7.1998 or that any relief was granted to him from any Telephone Lok Adalat. In view of the denial of the respondent in this regard, it was up to the appellant to place on record the relevant documents/material regarding the respondent having approached the Telephone Adalat as alleged. The appellant has also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent by the learned District Forum vide impugned order. The compensation of Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the learned District Forum in favour of the respondent is quite reasonable and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned District Forum, in this regard, as well.

THEREFORE, The present appeal being barred by limitation as well as being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed with directions to the appellant to comply with the directions of the District Forum contained in the impugned order. The costs of the present proceedings are fixed at Rs. 1,000/-. The directions in terms of the impugned order be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of this order failing which the appellant will be liable to pay interest on the amount awarded in the impugned order as well as the costs of the present proceedings @ 12% per annum from the date of order till realisation. The present appeal is disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed with costs.