MOHMED SIDDIK ADAM HAFEJI Vs. B J MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant's advocate is not present. An application has been sent by the learned advocate through 2 his clerk for adjournment on the ground that his client has gone for Haj. The adjournment is refused. We have gone through the complaint and we find that the same has been exaggerated in order to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of this Commission. It also appears that he had filed a civil suit in respect of the other two telephones and the suit has been registered as regular Civil Suit No.510 of 91 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division wherein, as alleged by the other side, he has also claimed damages regarding these telephones. No evidence, whatsoever, has been produced as to how he has suffered the damages of the amount of Rs.70,000.00 except his own affidavit on the last date also he was not present. But we had adjourned on account of communal disturbances. It also appears that the complaint with regard to this telephone is pending before the District Forum wherein the complainant can ask for further relief by amending the complaint. We are convinced that the claim has been inflated. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this practice should be discouraged.

(2.) In any view of the matter neither the complainant nor his advocate is present. We therefore dismiss this complaint without entering into the merits. The complainant may pursue his remedy elsewhere if he so desires. ORDER the complaint is dismissed. With no order as to costs.