CALCUTTA TELEPHONES Vs. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially this appeal was preferred by the Calcutta Telephone under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 from an order dated 16.5.92 passed by the Calcutta District Forum in C. D. J. case No.34 of 1992 and after hearing entensively to both the parties represented by Mr. Sankar Kar, Counsel for the Calcutta Telephone and Mr. N. R. Mukherjee Counsel for the respondent on several occasion an order was passed on 17.7.92 by us in the matter directing the Calcutta Telephone inter alia to reconnect the Telephone line of the respondent without reconnection charge of Rs.100/- upon payment of the provisional bills for the disputed cycles 11/91 and 1/92 and such provisional bill to be raised and forwarded to the respondent, we further directed the Calcutta Telephone authority to pay an Ad-hoc compensation of Rs.1000/- to the respondent.

(2.) The said order was not complied with by the Calcutta Telephones and in the premises we directed the Divisional Engineer Consumer Forum, Calcutta Telephones to appear in person to show-cause as to why the said order was not complied with; the said Divisional Engineer Consumer Forum Mr. A. Sarkar failed to appear before us inspite of repeated reminders and ultimately an warrant of arrest was issued against him and only the thereafter he entered personal appearance before us. On 18.12.92 the matters was heard once again in presence of both the parties and D. E. C. F. Calcutta Telephones only as that date the Telephone Authority submitted the provisional bill (issue date 1.12.92) for disputed circle 11/92 and 1/92 before this Commission and the respondent deposited a cheque of Rs.5,000/- drawn in favour of Calcutta Telephones against the said two provisional bills for Rs.2,500.00 each. The D. E. C. F. Calcutta Telephone though did not gave any cogent explanation whatsoever as to why he had not complied with our order dt.17/7/1992 till the date however gave an order undertaking in that date he will with the order dt.17/7/1992

(3.) Subsequently on 23.12.90 we passed another order directing the D. E. F. C Calcutta Telephones to show-cause as to why proceeding u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act should not be started against him. As because it was brought to our notice by the respondent that till 23/12/1992 the order dated 17/7/1992 had not been complied with.