Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.           Captioned appeal  is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.           The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant is a regular consumer of opposite party no.2. He was paying telephone bill regularly.

4.          It is alleged inter alia that he was asked to pay bill for October, 2006 to November, 2006 before opposite party no.1, but the opposite party no.1 did not receive the bill alleging that it is defective bill. The complainant requested to rectify the bill, but nobody heard him, that is why he filed the complaint case.  

5.          The opposite party no.1 has filed show cause. Since the father of the complainant was the consumer, after his death, the complainant was using the telephone for which he cannot be taken as consumer. On the other hand, there is no payment of  telephone bill for the period October, 2006 to November, 2006 because the bill was erroneous. Finding the deficiency on the part of the opposite party, the complaint was filed.

6.          Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the telephone bill was erroneous one, they have preferred not to file any written version. According to him, since the bill was defective, they should not accepted the bill. He also submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is erroneous one and requested to allow the appeal.

7.          Considered the submissions, perused the DFR and the impugned order. 

8.          It is settled principle of law that the complainant is to prove the deficiency on the part of the opposite party. It is admitted fact that complainant received a telephone bill  for the month of October, 2006 to November, 2006, but opposite party no.2 accepted the bill as the same was erroneous. It is not in dispute that opposite party no.2 did not receive the bill as it is a defective one.

9.          Learned counsel for the appellant did not show anything what is the defect in the bill. Therefore, the bill produced before the opposite party no.1 for the month of October, 2006 to November, 2006 has been generated showing the amount of Rs. 661/- payable by the complainant.

10.        When the bill is very clear and there  is no defect, deficiency on the part of opposite party no.1 is proved.

11.        In view of the  aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that apparently there is no error in law in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. The impugned order is  confirmed.  

              The appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.