MTNL vs UNIBROS

HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Complainant in this case had a telephonic connection with STD facility installed at Karol Bagh, New Delhi since 14.5.1990 with the average bill never exceeded Rs. 1,750 Suddenly OP/MTNL raised bill dated 9.3.2001 for an amount of Rs. 1,46,260, bill dated 9.4.2001 for an amount of Rs. 1,34,635 and bill dated 15.5.2001 for an amount of Rs. 92,365. The Complainant states that there was no internet connection and it is their small firm engaged in domestic oriented business and he never received the bill dated 9.3.2001. The Complainant sought quashing of these bills. As this was not acceded to, the Complainant filed a Complaint before Lok Adalat wherein MTNL offered to waive of 30% of the disputed bills.

SUBSEQUENT LY the Complainant filed a Complaint before District Forum which accepted the Complaint and ordered as follows: 1. OP will withdraw the impugned three bills and will instead issue three fresh bills at the average of Rs. 1,750 for the period 9.3.2001, 9.4.2001 and 15.5.2001 and the telephone be restored if not already restored.

OP will pay 10,000 towards compensation for causing him mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service.

OP will pay Rs. 2,000 towards cost of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by the Order of the District Forum MTNL filed an Appeal before the State Commission. Before the State Commission it was urged by the MTNL that RFA filed by MTNL is pending before the High Court of Delhi. Therefore the Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is barred by res judicata. The State Commission after traversing through several judgments came to the conclusion that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy and hence appeal was dimissed. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission MTNL had filed this Revision Petition. Learned Counsel for the MTNL submits that he does not dispute the powers vested in the consumer Fora under Section 3 of the Act. His contentions are two -fold. The Complaint before the District Forum is hopelessly barred by time. The bills pertain to the year 2001 whereas the Complaint was filed in the year 2005. Secondly, that when the same issue is pending before the Hon''ble High Court how could the Consumer Fora intervene and adjudicate upon the same. This results in parallel proceedings and it is not in the interest of justice.

THESE two points are controverted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Jagdish Vats who with all force at his command argues that there is no delay in filing the complaint before the District Forum as much as the Complainant had approached Lok Adalat which after several sittings offered to reduce the bill by only 30%. As it was not to the full satisfaction of the Complainant he filed a Complaint before District Forum and the delay is neither intentional or unjust. Even the affidavit filed by the officer of the MTNL conceals the fact that matter was pending before the Lok Adalat and such pendency cannot be construed as delay.

MR . Vats further submitted that after the complaint was filed before District Forum and notice was issued to the MTNL then only MTNL filed a Civil Suit to frustrate the efforts of the Complainant. Hence it is not the fault of the Complainant that there are parallel proceedings. On the other hand it is fault of the MTNL to have indulged in expensive litigation, when free services are available under the Consumer Fora. He further alleged that before the Civil Court they had concealed the factum of pendency of the matter before the Consumer Forum.

IT is very clear from the records produced before us and the submissions made by the learned Counsel that there was no delay in filing the Complaint before the District Forum, as the harassed Complainant was knocking at the doors of Lok Adalat expecting that full relief will be granted. As the Petitioner had offered to reduce the bill by only 30% he had no other option but to approach the District Forum for obtaining full relief. Hence we hold that the Complaint before the District Forum was not time barred.

SECONDLY , the Complainant had not filed a Civil Suit. It is only MTNL which had filed the Civil Suit. Hence the Complainant is not barred from pursuing his matter before the Consumer Forum. In fact the dispute before the Consumer Forum was filed prior to the filing of the Civil Suit by the MTNL. Hence on this ground also the argument of the Petitioner''s Counsel is not valid.

IN Kishori Lal v. E.S.I. Corporation, II (2007) CPJ 25 (SC)=AIR 2007 SC 1819, it was held that the Consumer Protection Act only excludes services which are rendered free of charge or under contract of personal services. The MTNL does not provide services free of charge. Further the Apex Court held in this case as follows: It has been held in numerous cases of this Court that the jurisdiction of a consumer Forum has to be construed liberally so as to bring many cases under it for their speedy disposal. In the case of M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital and Another v. Harjol Ahluwalia and Another, AIR 1998 SC 1801, it was held that the CP Act creates a framework for speedy disposal of consumer dispute and an attempt has been made to remove the existing evils of the ordinary Court system. The Act being a beneficial legislation should receive a liberal construction. In State of Karnataka v. Vishwabarathi House Building Co -op. Society and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1043, the Court speaking on the jurisdiction of the consumer fora held that the provisions of the said Act are required to be interpreted as broadly as possible and the fora under the CP Act have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint despite the fact that other Fora/Courts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis. These judgments have been cited with approval in paras 16 and 17 of the judgment in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co -operative Agri -cultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 305. The trend of the decisions of this Court is that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum should not and would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting the consumer Forum to take up the matter which falls within the jurisdiction of Civil Court or any other Forum as established under some enactment. The Court had gone to the extent of saying that if two different Fora have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the consumer forum would not be barred and the power of the consumer forum to adjudicate upon the dispute could not be negated.

THE ratio of the above case is squarely applicable to the case on hand.

THE National Commission in I (2004) CPJ 102 (NC), U.P. Pandey and Ors. held that: Instructions of the Government of India issued in the form of directions vide its order No. 4 -59/85 -TR dated 9.4.1986 are relevant here. The Commission observed as follows - "We do not see any action on above lines taken by the petitioners which itself is a deficiency in service. There are detailed instructions known as investigation of an excess billing complaint.''

"There is nothing on record to show that the complaint made by the complainant with regard to higher bills was investigated as per procedure laid down in these instructions. State Commission, in our view, have followed in spirit the purport of these instructions. There has to be a limit to arbitrariness. Complaint is made, it is not investigated. In our view, the petitioner failed completely to notice the spurt in use of telephone and to take follow -up action as per their own instructions."

THEREFORE , there is a clear -cut deficiency in service by the MTNL and accordingly we do not see any merit in this Revision Petition and, therefore, it is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. The MTNL is given four weeks'' time to comply with the directions issued by the lower Fora. R.P. dismissed.