(Passed on 13.12.2013)

Per Mr N Arumugam, Hon’ble Member

          This is an appeal filed by the original O.P. against the order dtd. 22.11.2000  passed by Addl. District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in consumer complaint No.CC/00/159 directing the O.P. to restore the telephone bearing No.BPX-41024 after obtaining necessary reconnection charges from the complainant and Rs.200/- towards the cost of proceeding.

The facts of the case in brief are as under:-

1.                The complainant obtained the above telephone bearing No.BPX-41024 for his use.  This telephone number was disconnected due to non-payment of monthly telephone charges. After paying the pending telephone charges of Rs.887/-, the complainant requested to restore the disconnected telephone.  Since the O.P. did not restore the telephone he filed consumer complaint before the Forum for restoration of telephone and claimed damages of Rs.50,000/-,  Rs.25,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards cost notice charges and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of complaint. 

2.                The O.P. resisted the complaint by submitting Written Version, stating that complainant did not pay reconnection charges hence, the telephone could not be restored and submitted to dismiss the complaint.

3.                After hearing both the parties and perusal of the case papers, the Forum below allowed the complaint partly as stated above.

4.                Feeling aggrieved by that order the O.P. preferred the present appeal.

5.                Adv. Mr R G Agrawal appeared for the appellant and argued that the above telephone was disconnected due to non-payment of monthly charges. After gap of more than six months the complainant paid the unpaid pending bills and requested for restoration.  Since the payment was made after the lapse of six months the complainant has to pay reconnection charges also. The complainant paid only the pending bills the appellant requested the complainant to pay the reconnection charges.  Since reconnection charges were not paid the telephone could not be restored. Without paying the reconnection charges the complainant filed a consumer complaint. The Forum also directed the complainant to pay the reconstruction charges for restoring the telephone.  Till the date the complainant did not pay the reconnection charges.  If the complainant pays the said charges the appellant is ready to restore the telephone.  However, while passing the order the Forum below erroneously awarded Rs.200/- towards cost of proceeding. The Forum below without any fault of the appellant unnecessarily saddled the cost of proceeding.  Hence, he requested to set aside the order passed by the Forum below.

6.                After hearing both the parties on 05.12.2013 and on perusal of the case papers, we observe that the telephone connection was not restored due to the non-payment of reconnection charges.  Hence, no costs can be saddled on the appellant / original O.P. The Forum below saddled the cost of Rs.200/-, which is not correct. 

We, therefore, pass the following order:-

ORDER

i.        The appeal is partly allowed.

ii.       The appellant is directed to restore the telephone connection after receiving the reconnection charges and Rs.200/- awarded by the Forum as cost of proceeding is hereby set aside.

iii.      No order as to cost in this appeal.

iv.      Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.