JUDGMENT : When this matter was posted on 22.04.2021 there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent though counsel had entered appearance and their names printed. The appellant has argued the matter extensively. The matter was therefore adjourned under the caption “For Orders” today. 2. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Considering the fact that the appeal is of the year 2008, this Court is proceeding to pronounce Judgment on the basis of the arguments of the appellant and the records. 3. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.56,144/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation. The said amount was due from the respondent towards the usage of the telephone bearing old No.36483 subsequently changed as No.KTN 436483 and installed at 67 - B, Tamilar Street, Nelakondali, Koothanallur, Needamangalam Taluk, Tiruvarur District. 4. The case of the appellant is that this connection was provided to the respondent on 11.08.2000 and a sum of Rs.1,200/- was collected as security deposit. As per the terms of the agreement between the appellant and the respondent/subscriber, the respondent was bound to pay the amounts claimed in the bills that would be forwarded to him on a bi-monthly/monthly basis. 5. The appellant would submit that though the bi-monthly bills were forwarded to the respondent, the respondent did not make the payment and the arrears accumulated to the tune of Rs.56,144/-. Considering the continued non payment the appellant in order to exercise their right had disconnected the respondent's connection on 19.10.2001 and the respondent was declared as defaulter. Despite repeated requests the respondent failed to make the payment. A notice dated 14.03.2002 was also issued to the respondent, however, there was no response there by constraining the appellant to file the suit O.S.No.71 of 2004. 6. The respondent had resisted the above suit on the ground that there were several discrepancies in the bill and despite his request for revised bill the appellant had not come forward to provide him with the same. That apart, the appellant had not taken note of the change in tariff. The respondent would submit that once the revised bill is sent, he would make the payment. The respondent would submit that the tariff was calculated as one unit. That apart, the appellant had not taken note of the change in tariff. The respondent would submit that once the revised bill is sent, he would make the payment. The respondent would submit that the tariff was calculated as one unit. The respondent has also admitted the fact that he was using an Internet over the said connection. 7. The parties had gone to trial and on the side of the appellant one S.Baskaran was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 were marked. The respondent examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.12. 8. The learned District Munsif, Mannargudi on consideration of the pleadings framed the following issues: IN OTHER LANGUAGE 9. On a perusal of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi returned a finding that the respondent had not let in any evidence whatsoever to show that the calculation of the amounts due under the various bills by the appellant was wrong. On the contrary, the documents filed by the respondent would not in any manner advance the case of the respondent that the calculation given by the appellant was wrong. 10. The learned Judge had also observed that if there were any discrepancy in the bill then the respondent ought to have immediately approached the department pointing out the discrepancy, such a course has not been adopted by the respondent and it is only in the Written statement that he has for the first time made this statement that there are several discrepancies in the bills and that change in tariff has not been taken into account. 11. The respondent produced Ex.B.1, the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in C.O.P.No.55 of 2003 to prove their case that there was discrepancy in the billing. The learned District Munsif was not inclined to consider Ex.B.1 as the appellant had filed an appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the same was pending. Therefore, the learned Judge was not inclined to accept the said finding of the District Consumer Forum and had decreed the suit. 12. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree of the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi, the respondent herein had filed A.S.No.42 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Mannargudi. Therefore, the learned Judge was not inclined to accept the said finding of the District Consumer Forum and had decreed the suit. 12. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree of the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi, the respondent herein had filed A.S.No.42 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Mannargudi. The only ground on which the appeal has been allowed was on the ground that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant department. The learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi therefore held that the appellant herein was not entitled to any relief and accordingly the appeal was allowed and the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.71 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi was set aside. 13. Challenging the reversing Judgment and Decree the appellant is before this Court. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 10.07.2008: “Whether the Judgment and Decree of the I Appellate Court is perverse on account of its failure to consider the pleadings as well as the evidence in their proper perspective warranting interference in second appeal?” 14. Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff would submit that pending the Second Appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai had passed an order in the appeal filed by the Department in A.P.No.289 of 2004 filed challenging the order in O.P.No.55 of 2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvarur. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by its order dated 09.05.2008 was pleased to allow the appeal. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had observed that the respondent had admitted that he has been using the Internet service for his business purpose and that a suit has been filed by the appellant department for recovery of bill amount. 15. While the suit was pending, the respondent had approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum totally suppressing the pendency of the suit. The respondent who had availed the service of the appellant and who had undertaken to pay the dues is bound to make the payment. Therefore, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 16. The respondent who had availed the service of the appellant and who had undertaken to pay the dues is bound to make the payment. Therefore, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 16. In the light of the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the Judgment passed by the Appellate Court, namely, the Sub Court, Mannargudi in A.S.No.42 of 2006 has no legs to stand. The only ground on which the appeal was allowed was on the basis of the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Considering the fact that the order has been set aside in the appeal by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the very basis of the Appellate Court's Judgment fails. 17. The learned Subordinate Judge has not considered the evidence that has been let in by the appellant. He has further failed to consider that the respondent who pleads that there were discrepancy in the appeal has not raised any dispute till the filing of the suit. It is only in the suit for the first time that this defense has been taken. The learned Subordinate Judge has failed to consider the pleadings and the evidence filed from its correct perspective and therefore the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge has to be set aside. 18. In view of the above discussion, the Substantial Question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and the Second Appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.