GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM-/ , GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM vs H.I.Sanghvi , A.K. SOMAIYA

BOTH these Appeals are filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the order passed by the District Forum, Rajkot, in Complaints Nos. 49 of 1990 and 25 of 1990, by which, the learned President has directed the Telecom Department to give certain rebate of rent and other facilities to the Complainants of both the aforesaid complaints and to comply with the said order within one month. It is against the said order passed by the learned District Forum that the Appellant Telecom Department has preferred these two Appeals. We had called for the record and proceedings of both the complaints from the District Forum and from the record, we find that the Respondent before us had filed the complaint which is merely signed by the respective complainant but has not been verified by him on oath. Similarly, the Accounts Officer of the Telephone Revenue, Rajkot, has filed his Objections in both the complaints, without any verification for the contentions raised and averments made therein or stating that he is filing the objections on behalf of the General Manager, Telephones, Rajkot or under any authority. Further, the Accounts Officer, Telephone, appears to have produced the xerox copies of Fault Cards without any averments as to who wrote all those Cards pertaining to the telephone in question or that the contents of those Fault Card were correct.

THE principal defence of the Department seems to be the Arbitration Clause contained in Rule 7(b) of the Indian Telegraphs Act. Neither the complainant, nor the Opposite party has filed any affidavit or has tendered any other documentary or oral evidence.

In Appeal No. 3 of 1991 which arises out of Complaint No. 25 of 1990, the complainant has filed the complaint and has not verified the same. He has produced copies of the complaints made by him to the Department. Likewise, the Accounts Officer of the Department, who has filed the written statement, has neither mentioned his authority or power, nor has he verified the written statement stating that he had authority to file any written statement, or document on behalf of the General Manager of the Telephone Department. In this complaint also, reliance is placed on Arbitration Clause contained in Rule 7(b) under the Indian Telegraphs Act. The Department has produced the xerox copies of Cards without mentioning who maintains these cards and there is no affidavit of the person maintaining such cards.

NOW, the Record and Proceedings does not show as to whether the learned President of the District Forum had inquired from the parties about their intention to file any Affidavit, documents, or to lead any evidence. It may be remembered that the District Forums, State Commissions and the National Commission created under the Consumer Protection Act are the statutory Tribunals. Even if they are not supposed to follow the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or the Indian Evidence Act scrupulously, still, however, they can not decide the matters filed before them only on the averments made in the pleadings without any supporting affidavit or without any admitted documents on record, or without any oral evidence being adduced by the parties. There would be various types of cases which may come before the Statutory Forums. Some cases can be decided without any evidence if only the legal issues are involved, just like jurisdiction, limitation, etc. Some cases can be decided by admission of the parties; some cases are such that they can be decided by accepting Affidavits only, when there is no such a dispute requiring elaborate evidence. Some cases can be decided by admitting documentary evidence. But then, there are cases where oral evidence is absolutely necessary, and in such a case, the Judge may permit the limited cross examination so that the factual evidence can be properly appreciated. Lastly, there are some cases where elaborate oral evidence and consideration of number of documents and long drawn arguments might be necessary. In this last type of cases, the Forum may refuse to deal with the case on merit and may relegate the parties to ordinary civil course by taking the matter before the Civil Court.

HOWEVER, the fact remains that the rights of the parties cannot be decided merely on the bare averments as they are made in the pleadings. In the instant case, the complaint as well as the written statement both are merely signed by the parties without any verification which is a must in the pleadings. Further, they are also not supported by any Affidavit or by leading any oral evidence. Again, the documents produced by the parties are not admitted by the parties and they are not of the type for which Judicial notice can be taken without any formal proof. Under the provision of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, the Forum and the Commissions are bound to follow the principles of natural justice and the principles of natural justice cannot be imprisoned in a straight jacket. It varies from case to case, depending upon the circumstances of the case, the nature of inquiry, the Rules under which the Tribunal is functioning; the subject matter to be dealt with and so-forth. Again, all the Redressal Forums are the Statutory Tribunals presided over by the sitting or a retired Judges. The procedure before such a Tribunal should be adversary and not inquisitorial. This Tribunal having all the trappings of the Court, it is expected to decide the complaints on the basis of the evidence produced before it. We have observed that most of the complainants who approach the Redressal Forums, are not well equipped like the Advocates and they are under the impression that if they file a complaint, the Forum will inquire into the matter and do the justice. In these circumstances, it is necessary that the Presiding Judge should inform the concerned party that the complaint when filed should be supported by other evidence which may be in the form of the affidavit, proved or admitted documents, and, in some cases, even by leading the oral evidence; and, the parties are to be given a further opportunity to produce the evidence/documents which may be in their possession, power or custody or to produce the same through the process of the Court. It is also necessary to see that the Complaints should not be allowed to be defeated on account of their ignorance.

HAVING regard to all these facts and circumstances appearing on record, and especially considering the fact that the parties have not proved any documents on record, nor they have tendered any affidavit in support of their case, we feel that interest of justice would be well met if we remand both the complaints to the learned District Forum, with direction to decide the complaints afresh after giving all the opportunities to the parties to adduce such evidence as they may choose, in support of their respective contentions and to dispose of the complaints after hearing the parties, according to law.

WE, therefore, allow these Appeals, set aside the orders passed in both the complaints and remand the same to the District Forum to decide the same afresh. Complaints remanded.