Back
Padmanabh Pati Tripathi - Appellant
Versus
J.T.O. Telephone - Respondent
Decided On : 01/30/1993
Appeal No. 200 of 1992
Advocates Appeared :
Ramkant Pathak,K.K. Jain
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 & 14 - Complaint regarding telephone lying dead for long and then instrument also removed by the dept. - Material produced by telephone department showing that telephone was in order and calls were being made - Bald statement of complainant that telephone was dead cannot be believed - Order of Dist. Forum dismissing complaint is just and valid. (Para 3)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
V.S. Kokje, President. - This is an appeal against the dismissal of a complaint against the Telephone Department by the District FOf4m, Shahdol. The complainant/Appellant had complained that his telephone connection No. 2143 was dead from 19.3.1992 and despite the entire. bills having been paid relating to that telephone, it was not restored. It was also complained that the telephone instrument was taken away by some person of the Department and was not replaced.
2. The Opposite Parties denied the allegations and contended that the telephone was not disconnected and was working alright. That calls were made from that telephone during the period during which it is alleged that it was dead. It was also contended that no person from the Department had removed the instrument from the complainant's premises and when the complainant complained about this in writing a reply in writing was sent denying the allegations and exerting the complainant to file the complaint with the Police in respect of the telephone set being taken away by some one. The complainant did not do so.
3. After hearing the learned Counsel and after perusing the record we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum. It is clear from the material on record that according to the departmental records the telephone connection was in order and working. Calls were shown to have been made• by the same telephone. In the face of the material placed on record by the Department, the bald statement of the complainant that the telephone was dead cannot be believed. Similarly, as regards removal of the telephone instrument from the premises of the complainant it was for the complainant to show as to .who took it away. When the complainant has no receipt acknowledging taking away of the instrument by anyone and when the Department had offered the matter to be got investigated by the Police by requesting the complainant to lodge a report with the Police, it cannot be said that the telephone instrument was taken away by an employee of the Telephone Department
The appeal has no force and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
