Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Honble Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President; Mr. Sada Nand &
Mrs. P. Ojha, Members
DR. PAWAN SHARMA—Appellant
versus
DISTRICT MANAGER, TELEPHONES —Respondent
Appeal Case No. 140 of 1997—Decided on 10.2.1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ch. Amar Singh, G.P.
The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the disputed bill in question was not part of the previous judgment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Headnote:
Bill - Disputed Telephone Bill - The court dismissed the appeal challenging the disputed telephone bill, stating that the bill in question was not part of the previous judgment and therefore no interference was called for.
Fact of the Case:
Dr. Pawan Sharma appealed the bill for 8/92 for a sum of Rs. 9,564/-, which was not part of the previous judgment. The court found that the bill in question was not related to the previous judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal challenging the order dated 4.9.1997, stating that the bill in question was not part of the previous judgment and therefore no interference was called for.
Issues: Disputed telephone bill not part of previous judgment
Ratio Decidendi: The disputed bill in question was not part of the previous judgment, and therefore no interference was called for in the previous judgment.
Final Decision: The appeal challenging the order dated 4.9.1997 was dismissed.
Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President — Dr. Pawan Sharma is a subscriber to telephone No. 531234. The disputed bill of February and April, 1992 which were for Rs. 1,239/- and 5,021/- have been dealt with in judgment dated 4.9.1997 of the District Forum-II, Chandigarh. In the present appeal. Dr. Pawan Sharma has challenged the bill for 8/92 for a sum of Rs. 9,564/-. It is obvious that this particular bill was neither in question nor dealt with in the judgment dated 4.9.1997. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the present bill relates to judgment dated 4.9.1997 and obviously no interference is called for in the aforesaid judgment.
2. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that Dr. Pawan Sharma was aggrieved in respect of his bill dated 29.8.1992 which was for a sum of Rs. 9,564/-. In this regard, he had instituted his Complaint No. 702/92. It appears that it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.7.1994 because none was present for the complainant. The complainant may like to seek any remedy, if admissible, in respect of the aforesaid order.
The conclusion is that the present appeal challenging the order dated 4.9.1997 stands dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
