ORDER Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member—This Revision Petition is filed by the complainant, Smt. Geeta Devi, against the order dated 12.8.2004 passed in Appeal No. A-418/97. Brief facts of the case are: The points that arose for discussion in this Revision Petition are: (i) Whether disconnection of a telephone for non-payment of a wrongly issued telephone bill will amount to deficiency in service? (ii) Whether the consumer of telephone is bound to pay the bill ‘under protest’ to receive uninterrupted services from the Telephone Department, instead of requesting them by letters to send the correct bills? 2. Complainant got a telephone connection installed on 3.4.94 and energized by the respondent on 22.4.1994. It was out of order for a period of one month between 28.5.1994 and 27.6.1994. On 16.10.1994, she received a bill whereby the respondent allegedly demanded installation charges of Rs. 800 which were already paid by the petitioner vide cheque No. 208475 dated 1.7.1995 with billing cycle 16.6.1994. Hence, she made repeated requests to respondent to send the revised bill after giving the credit to the installation charges which have been paid by her as stated above. It is her case that instead of correcting the bill they had withdrawn the outgoing call facility from 6th February, 1995 and her telephone connection was disconnected w.e.f. 20.4.1995. It is her further say that she had paid all the subsequent bills without fail. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a complaint in District Forum, Tis Hazari, Delhi for deficiency in service on the part of MTNL. The District Forum by their order dated 8.12.1995 ordered that telephone connection be restored and to issue corrected bill. Thereafter the bill was paid immediately, but the Telephone Department took 27 days to restore it. Thereafter, it appears that the case has been transferred to District Forum No. 4, Nand Nagri, Delhi. By their order dated 11.6.1997, District Forum, Nand Nagri, held that charging rent from 31st March, 1994, although it was energized only on 22.4.1994 and also that during the period 28th May, 1994 to 27th June, 1994, when the telephone was out of order, MTNL was unjustified in charging the same. Compensation of Rs. 500 and cost of litigation of Rs. 500 was allowed by the same order. 4. Aggrieved by this order, complainant went to the State Commission, Delhi. Compensation of Rs. 500 and cost of litigation of Rs. 500 was allowed by the same order. 4. Aggrieved by this order, complainant went to the State Commission, Delhi. The State Commission in its order observed that the grievance of the petitioner/complainant was limited to only rental rebate for one year, but has dismissed the appeal on the ground that proportionate rebate has been given. Petitioner’s husband argued in person and pointed out from his complaint dated 25.4.1995 wherein he brought out three disputes which are as under— (i) that the telephone was dead from 28.5.1994 to 27.6.1994; (ii) that instead of sending revised bills outgoing call facility was withdrawn w.e.f. 6.2.1995 and incoming calls were also disconnected w.e.f. 20.4.1995; (iii) that she had no other alternative for making calls from outside for no fault of her and that incurred a cost of Rs. 500 for the same; (iv) that the phone was restored only on 1.2.1996 after District Forum ordered on 8.12.1995 to connect and she suffered inconvenience and harassment till then; (v) That the respondent was charging rent during the period from 6.2.1995 till 1.2.1996 5. The petitioner/complainant argued that relief had been given to her with regard to first and third grievances as mentioned above, but the second grievance was not considered by the District Forum. 6. She claimed that she paid an amount of Rs. 400 bi-monthly as telephone rental charges starting from February 1995 to February 1996 when her phone was disconnected. She contended that respondent allegedly disconnected her phone on the basis of non-payment of wrong bills allegedly raised by the respondent and that during the period from 6.2.1995 to 20.4.1995, the respondent should not charge rent on her disconnected phone. We agree with her contention. Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that they have complied with the order of the District Forum immediately and that the complainant is continuing her litigation after having received rebate, compensation and cost in 1997 itself. It is evident that the petitioner’s claim of telephone rental charges for the months during the year 1995 is not considered by both the Fora. It is open to her to come in revision when the issue raised by her has not been dealt with in the lower Fora. It is evident that the petitioner’s claim of telephone rental charges for the months during the year 1995 is not considered by both the Fora. It is open to her to come in revision when the issue raised by her has not been dealt with in the lower Fora. Mere admission of two of her grievances does not shut doors for the complainant in agitating the remaining claim which has not been considered at all in lower Fora. 7. In view of the above discussion, we feel charging of Rs. 400 bi-monthly for 12 months which comes to Rs. 2,400 is unjustified as no service has been rendered by the respondent and yet the rental charges were allegedly claimed and received. We direct the respondent to pay Rs. 2,400 to the complainant/petitioner and further cost of Rs. 500 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. In view of the above terms, the revision petition is allowed. R.P. allowed. –––