HOTEL SHIVA CONTINENTAL vs TELECOM CENTRE

-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.

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. 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.

WE have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. Appellant, who is running a hotel in Mussoorie, has said that he has four telephone connections in the hotel, but while lodging the complaint before the Telecom Department, no details of the other three telephones was given. Also, to prove that there was a sudden spurt in telephone bills, the complainant should have given the details of the bills for the corresponding period of the previous years. The disputed bills are for the period from 16. 4. 1998 to 15. 10. 1998. The period from May to October is the peak business period of the hotel industry, particularly in the hill stations like Mussoorie. It is most likely that the telephone bills for this period may go up. If the total amount for all the telephones used in the hotel is unreasonably higher than the total amount of the bills for all the telephones used in the corresponding period for the previous years, then only the officials of the Telecom Department may have a reason to believe that there may be some fault in the meter. The complainant - appellant had not submitted any such details to the respondent in support of his complaint. Before the District Forum also, no such details were submitted. The onus to prove the allegation lies on the complainant and in the instant case, complainant - appellant has failed in proving his allegations. Even in respect of the call lists submitted before the District Forum, appellant could not point out as to which of the calls were not made from the telephone in question. The allegation that the call lists were not supplied by the respondent, is also not totally true. Appellant has admitted that call list for the bill dated 1. 11. 1998 for the period from 16. 8. 1998 to 15. 10. 1998 was made available by the respondent. Appellant - complainant could not find out any such call from the list, which was not made from his telephone.

A similar view has been expressed by this Commission in its judgment dated 12. 9. 2003 passed in Appeal No. 195 of 2003, Bharat Door Sanchar Vibhag v. Janta Medical Store, I (2004) CPJ 410. In that case also, the telephone of the complainant was having STD facility and it was installed in his shop. The complainant had concealed the fact that some of the bills of excessive amount were also received in the past and were deposited without any protest. This Commission has said in its order that the bills cannot be said to be excessive if the telephone having STD facility is installed in a shop. The appellant has relied on the judgment of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in the matter of Dhanjibhai K. Patel v. Union of India, II (1993) CPJ 875, wherein the State Commission had directed the Telephone Department to issue fresh bills on the basis of average and refund the excess money. We find that the facts of the said case are different from the facts of the present case. In Dhanjibhai K. Patel''s case (supra), the telephone of the complainant had remained dead and several complaints were lodged. Even then, the complainant had received a bill of excessive amount. More so, details of other bills were submitted by the complainant. Therefore, it was a case where the investigation was required to be made by the Telephone Department and to send a final reply to the complainant. Appellant has also referred the judgment of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in the matter of General Manager, Vadodar Telephones and Another v. Subhash Chandra Narhari Lal Pandya, III (1993) CPJ 1493 and the judgment of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in the matter of Union of India v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, I (1992) CPJ 418. Both the above-mentioned judgments pertain to the dispute of excessive billing. In the case of Subhash Chandra Narhari Lal Pandya (supra), the telephone was not having STD facility and details of other bills were also submitted by the complainant. In the said case, the State Commission held that the burden was upon the department to prove that the meter was working properly. In the case of Union of India v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Another (supra), the complainant had given details of other bills in support of allegations. But in the instant case, as stated above, comparative details of the bills for all the telephones being used in the hotel for the period in question and also for the corresponding period of previous years were not given. The appellant could not detect such calls from the call lists submitted by the respondent before the District Forum and from the call lists supplied to the complainant along with the telephone bill dated 1. 11. 1998, which were allegedly not made from his telephone.

FROM above, it is evident that the view taken by the District Forum was justified and reasoned and the same does not call for any interference.

THE appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.