C.C.PANT,MEMBER - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 7.9.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Dehradun in Consumer Complaint No. 292 of 1999. Vide the impugned order, the consumer complaint has been dismissed by the District Forum.
(2.) THE complainant - appellant is a private limited company and running a hotel at The Mall, Kulri, Mussoorie, District Dehradun. This appeal has been presented by the company through its Managing Director Sh. Vinesh Kumar Singhal. The dispute relates to telephone No. 632780, which is in the name of Sh. R.K. Singhal, Director of the company. When the appellant suddenly started receiving bills of excessive amount in the year 1998, he asked the Telecom Department to supply the statement of calls with the bills so that he could check the correctness of the bills. In spite of various letters and reminders sent to the respondent, no reply was received from the respondent. Ultimately, the appellant deposited the amounts shown in the bills under protest and filed a Consumer Complaint No. 292 of 1999 before the District Forum.
(3.) THE District Forum on an appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal has been preferred by the complainant - appellant. The telephone in question has the STD facility also. The appellant has alleged that the list of calls was not supplied with the bills, though the same was submitted before the District Forum by the respondent. It has also been alleged that in spite of writing various letters, no inquiry was made by the respondent in respect of the telephone bills of excessive amounts. It is contended by the appellant that the burden of proof that the meter was working properly is on the respondent. Refuting the allegations, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the telephone in question has STD facility and it is being used in a commercial establishment, though the appellant has said that he has three more telephone connections, but neither the telephone numbers, nor the details of the bills were ever produced by the appellant at any stage of the proceedings. It has been admitted by the appellant that the list of calls was submitted before the District Forum, but the appellant - complainant had not denied that all or some of the calls were not made from the telephone in question. Learned Counsel for the appellant further argued that the respondent had not supplied the list of calls made from the telephone in question. Learned Counsel argued that the respondent had not taken action as per the procedure laid down in para 434 of Chapter XV of Volume XIV of Post and Telegraph Manual and, therefore, the prayer made in the consumer complaint was just and reasonable and should have been allowed by the District Forum.;