RANBIR SINGH CHAUDHARY vs Telecom District Manager

THE revision petitioner here is the original complainant in the District Forum, Kurukshetra. THE petitioner filed against the order dated 4.4.2002 of the State Commission, Haryana and the order of the District Forum Kurukshetra dated 24.4.1998.

BRIEF facts of the case are: The petitioner Mr. Chaudhary had installed a telephone at his residence 30 years back prior to the disputed bill. A telephone bill of Rs. 8,078/- was issued on 1.8.1994 for the period of 16.5.1994 to 15.7.1994 by the respondents. He filed a complaint demanding for correction of the inflated bill and the respondents did not pay any heed to his complaint. Petitioner filed the complaint on 26.8.1994 in the District Forum, Kurukshetra for the correction of the bill and also for stay against disconnection of the telephone. The complaint was allowed vide order dated 2.8.1995 where the operative part of the order is as below: "The opposite party shall prepare two bills, one to include charges which are correctly payable by the subscriber local call being computed to be equal to the average number of calls metered during the six bi-monthly periods (one year) immediately preceding the disputed periods plus 10% over the average. Such a bill is called "split bill". Another bill shall be prepared for the balance and marked as "part local call bill (disputed)". The subscriber shall pay the first bill within 7 days, the opposite party is directed not to insist on the payment of the second bill till final decision is taken on the complaint lodged by subscriber after making proper investigation on the lines indicated in the Manual and in the Circular."

Thereafter the original complainant filed an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum alleging that action should be taken against the respondents for non-compliance of its order dated 2.8.1995. This application was dismissed by the District Forum vide its order dated 24.4.1998 which passed a detailed self-speaking order by coming to the conclusion that its earlier order has been complied with by the opposite parties. The complainant filed an appeal against this order before the State Commission which by its order dated April 4, 2002 also held that the order of the District Forum was duly complied with and that there is no case to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

THIS issue now raised by the petitioner that his miscellaneous application under Section 151, C.P.C. for issuance of a directive to the respondents to produce the record pertaining to ISD facility of the telephone has not been decided by the State Commission which thus has committed jurisdictional error resulting in miscarriage of justice. However, it is necessary to decide the limitation issue. The order of the State Commission is dated 4.4.2002 and the revision petition has only been filed on 25.2.2003 much after the time prescribed for filing. There is thus a delay of 223 days. The revision petitioner, however, stated that a copy of the order of the State Commission was received by his Counsel Mr. O.P.S. Tanwar at Chandigarh on 14.5.2002 and that the delay is of 196 days. He, however, pleaded for condonation of this delay on the ground that the brief of the petitioner and the certified copy of the impugned order were misplaced by the petitioner''s Advocate and they could only be traced on 21.2.2003 and that the revision petition has been filed within 3 days thereafter.

WE are, however, not convinced by this argument. The revision petitioner/original complainant Shri Chaudhary himself is a Lawyer and knows the importance of limitation. There has been gross delay in filing the revision petition. Moreover we find that the District Forum passed a very detailed and well-reasoned order on 24.4.1998 which has been upheld by the State Commission. WE, therefore, dismiss the revision petition as barred by limitation. Revision Petition dismissed.