M.T.N.L. vs MAJ.GEN. B.P. WADHERA

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against an order dated 26.7.1999, passed by District Forum No. II, in Complaint Case No. 1288/9 - entitled Maj. Gen. B.P. Wadhera v. THE General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the respondent had received a telephone bill in respect of telephone number 6441679, installed at his residence, for the billing cycle 6.4.1996 to 15.6.1996, for Rs. 17,955.21. THE grievance of the respondent in the complaint was that the abovesaid bill in respect of his telephone was far in excess because the average bill in respect of the abovesaid telephone for the last 12 months was in the range of Rs. 1,252/-. On receipt of the above bill, the respondent made a representation to the authorities of the appellant on 17.7.1996, which was followed by a reminder but no action was taken on the representation of the respondent by the officials of the appellant and the respondent had to deposit the entire amount. THE respondent, in the complaint filed by him, had prayed for a direction to the appellant to refund the excess amount. THE respondent had also claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- on account of expenses incurred and also for harassment and mental torture. On a perusal of the order, being impugned in the present proceedings, it is apparent that the learned District Forum, placing reliance on a decision of the National Commission - in case Telecom District Manager, Mehasana & Anr. v. Patel Shanker Lal Keval Ram, II (1996) CPJ 99 (NC), has held that there was a lapse and gross ''deficiency in service'' on the part of the appellant as the appellant failed to follow the guidelines issued by the Department for disposing of the complaints about excessive telephone bills. In our opinion, in the given facts, the above findings of the learned District Forum suffer from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers.

Moreover, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is barred by limitation. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum can prefer an appeal against such an order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. However, proviso to the abovesaid section provides that the Commission can entertain an appeal even after expiry of the abovesaid period of 30 days, if the Commission is satisfied that there was ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the same within the above said period. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, as already stated, is directed against order dated 26.7.1999 and as such the same should have been filed on or before 25.8.1999. The same has been filed much after the abovesaid prescribed period of 30 days, on 28.10.1999. In terms of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 15, the same can be entertained by this Commission even after the expiry of the abovesaid period of 30 days, provided the appellant satisfies that there was ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the same within that period. The words ''sufficient cause'', occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act, are of utmost significance. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression ''sufficient cause'', though deserve to receive a liberal construction, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be struck out between the right secured by the respondent as a result of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving an applicant of adjudication of his grievances on merits of his case for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the applicant. Though no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ''sufficient cause'' in a given case, yet, again as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is ''sufficient cause''. In doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man, in normal circumstances, which has to be applied.

IF the above criterion is applied to the case in hand, it is noticed that not only the present appeal has been filed by the appellant after the expiry of the prescribed period, the appellant has not even cared to show the reasons for not filing the appeal in time. There is no application or request seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Thus, in the presence of the above facts, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is also barred by limitation. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.