GUPTA TRADING CO. vs GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONE (I)

THE complainant M/s. Gupta Trading Co. is in appeal against order of District Forum, Ludhiana dated February 13, 1998 whereby complaint filed against Telephone Department was partly allowed. Rental rebate for the period March 29, 1997 to April 8, 1997 only was allowed.

THE grouse of the complainant was that his telephone remained dead w.e.f. February 17, 1997. Inspite of complaints having been made, the same was not set in order that he moved the District Forum for the relief. THE plea was denied by the Telephone Department that fault was reported on March 29, 1997 and was rectified on April 8, 1997. Both the parties produced their evidence and documents. THE complainant also produced re-joinder. The District Forum did not accept the version of the complainant on the ground that proper affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint was not filed. We find that this approach is not correct. No specific form of affidavit is prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act or the Rules framed thereunder. In the summary jurisdiction, the FORA has been authorised to take on the record evidence on affidavit. A short affidavit, of-course, was filed by the complainant stating therein that the contents of his complaint be read as part of affidavit and the same were correct and true. We find no infirmity in the affidavit as such. When the complainant has sworn to the correctness of the fact stated in the complaint which were to be part of the affidavit as such, the same could not be ignored. Even if the affidavit aforesaid is found to be defective, for proper adjudication of the cause, the complainant should have been given an opportunity to produce a detailed affidavit. To deny the relief, which is legitimate otherwise, on the technical ground as stated above is not proper. The whole purpose of the Act would stand frustrated if on technical ground, relief is declined by the FORA.

The question for consideration is as to whether telephone of the complainant, No. 40797921 was defective w.e.f. February 17, 1997. Annexure-I produced by the complainant is a complaint in writing made to the Telephone Department on March 14, 1997 specifically mentioning therein that the aforesaid telephone was dead since February 17, 1997 and his complaints to the officers of the Telephone Department did not bear any fruit. No action on such a complaint appears to have been taken by the Telephone Department. This complaint bears the stamp of the Telephone Department of having been received on 14.3.1997. There was no reason to disbelieve the complainant that his telephone remained out of order w.e.f. February 17, 1997. That being the position, the complainant was entitled to rent rebate from February 17, 1997 to April 8, 1997. While accepting the appeal, we modify the order of the District Forum. Accordingly, complainant would be given rental rebate for the aforesaid period. The complainant will get compensation of Rs. 500/- and costs of Rs. 500/-. Appeal allowed.