BRIJ KISHAN GUJRATI Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD
LAWS(DELCDRC)-2006-7-1
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on July 27,2006

BRIJ KISHAN GUJRATI Appellant
VERSUS
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) COMPLAINANT applied for a telephone connection under N -OYT (G) category vide application dated 8.3.1983 for installation at his residence No. 1766M Kucha Lattoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi. When the complainant did not get telephone connection till February, 1987 as he required the telephone at his residence on account of illness of his mother, he applied for another telephone connection in OYT (G) category vide application dated 10.3.1987 on priority basis after depositing the requisite fees of Rs. 8,000. Accordingly telephone No. 268469 in OYT (G) against application dated 10.3.1987 was allotted on 16th October, 1987.
(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant N -OYT (G) category telephone applied vide application dated 8.3.1983 was never allotted to him. But he received a letter dated 17.11.1995 from the O.P. raising a bill for Rs. 6,08,649 against telephone No. 6463327, which telephone was never allotted to him. In the bill it was also mentioned if the payment was not made the telephone No. 268469 allotted on priority basis vide application dated 16.8.1987 shall be disconnected.
(3.) THROUGH this complaint the complainant has sought quashing of the said bill. The aforesaid bill, according to him, is against the telephone which was never installed at his residence and was never used by him nor had he ever received sanction letter in the form of OB in respect of said telephone. On the contrary the O.P. s version is that the complainant himself requested the O.P. to transfer and instal the said telephone after it was hypothetically allotted in Jangpura to East of Kailash. As per request of the complainant the O.P. transferred and installed the said telephone at F -1/A, East of Kailash, New Delhi. Though the telephone was installed at East of Kailash, as per the request of the complainant but in the directory, instead of Gujrati Brij Kishan, F -1/A, East of Kailash, it was shown as Gujral Brij Kishan, F -1/A, East of Kailash - 110065 which appears to be a printing mistake and as no correction was asked for by the complainant the same was carried in the subsequent directory published by the O.P.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.