(Passed on 20.03.2013)
Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member
This appeal is directed against the judgment & order dtd.03.07.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gadchiroli, partly allowing the Consumer Complaint No.CC/00/29 directing the o.p.No.1 to pay to the complainant compensation at Rs.2,400/-.
(For the sake of brevity the appellants hereinafter are referred as “the o.ps” and the respondent as “the complainant”.)
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
1. The complainant is a consumer of the o.ps having telephone at his residence. According to the complainant the telephone connection was given on 01.04.1996. It was the same telephone connection number earlier given to one Motwani and after 01.04.1996 telephone bill of Rs.193/- was issued in the name of the complainant for the period from 04.12.1996 to 01.04.1996. Therefore, the complainant has not paid the amount of bill. The subsequent bills were also issued in the name of Motwani and as the complainant did not pay any bill which was issued in the name of Motwani the o.ps. disconnected his telephone connection. Therefore, the complainant made consumer complaint, alleging deficiency in service on the part of o.ps and claimed restoration of telephone connection and also the compensation at Rs.5,000/-.
2. O.p.No.2 resisted the complaint by its Written Version. It is not disputed that prior to 01.04.1996 the telephone number was in the name of one Motwani. It is also not disputed that the telephone bill was issued in the name Motwani but it is denied that the o.p. have wrongly claimed telephone bill from the complainant for the period prior to 01.04.1996. It is submitted that as the complainant was using telephone from 01.04.1996 he is liable to pay the telephone bills but as he failed to pay the bills, the telephone is disconnected. However, no Written Version appears to have been filed by O.p.No.1.
3. On hearing both the sides, and considering the record the Forum partly allowed the complaint directing the o.p No.1 to pay to the complainant compensation at Rs.2,400/-.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement & order, the o.ps have preferred this appeal.
5. We perused the Written Notes of Argument filed by the o.ps and also perused the copy of impugned judgement & order, copies of complaint, Written Version.
6. A bare glance at the copy of impugned judgement & order it manifests that the Forum directed the o.p.No.1 Mr Sadanwar, Sub-Divisional Engineer to pay compensation to the complainant; but he is not made party to this appeal. On the contrary, after filing the Written Notes of Argument by Ld. Counsel for the o.ps nobody for the o.ps turned up. In our view when Mr Sadanwar Sub-Divisional Engineer of the o.p. was – by name, made party to the complaint and impugned judgement & order passed against him only, he is necessary party to the appeal and as he is not made party the appeal is not at all maintainable.
7. Apart from the above legal lacunae from the record, it appears that though the telephone connection was given to the complainant on 01.04.196 the bills were issued in the name of Motwani and therefore, the Forum has rightly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. Therefore, we find no glaring error or infirmity in the impugned judgement & order. Hence, no interference is warranted.
8. In the result, the appeal is being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
i. Appeal is dismissed.
ii. No order as to cost.
iii. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
