GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM AMRITSAR Vs. TEJ PAL SINGH RANDHAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though short but mandatory provisions contained under Consumer Protection Act are required to be followed by the FORA for administering justice between the parties. Any intension to hesitate even such procedure would ultimately result in denial of justice to one of the parties. Present is an example of such a hasty procedure followed by the District Forum.

(2.) Tej Pal Singh Randhava filed complaint against the Telephone Department before the District Forum, Amritsar. It was taken up by the Forum on April 30,1997 and adjourned to May 6,1997. On that very date copy of the complaint was stated to have been given probably to Standing Counsel or representative of the Telephone Department, who happened to be present. On May 6,1997 the case was adjourned to May 20, 1997 for filing written statement as well as evidence. On May 20, 1997 written statement was filed by the Telephone Department. On that very day arguments were heard and for orders the case was adjourned to May 21, 1997 on which date final order was passed. Sec.13 of the Consumer Protection Act provides procedure to be followed on the complaint received. The rule framed under the Act allows one month and fifteen days (maximum) for the opposite party to file the reply. Fact remained that reply was filed on May 20,1997 in the present case, which is much before the aforesaid period. After filing of the reply, it was incumbent on the Forum to call upon the parties to lead evidence in support of their assertions made in the pleadings. This opportunity was not afforded to the parties by the District Forum in the present case resulting in passing of the impugned order only on the pleadings of the parties. At this stage, it may be observed that in the written statement filed, the allegations of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Telephone Department were not admitted, but denied. Hence the impugned order passed cannot be sustained in law. The same is set-aside while accepting the appeal. The case is sent back to the District Forum for affording opportunity to the parties for producing evidence and thereafter for decision on merits according of law. Parties present are directed to appear before the District Forum on December 21,1998. Copy of the order alongwith records of the District Forum be sent there promptly.