DIVL ENGG TELEGRAPH KATIHAR Vs. ANIL CHAMARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsels for the appellant as well as the respondent are present. They were heard. The appeal has been filed against the order dated 11-11-92 passed by the District Forum, Katihar in Complaint Case No.74 of 1992. The appellant before this Commission was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.

(2.) The details facts of the case need not be mentioned as the case is being disposed of on a very short point of law.

(3.) The case is filed before the District Forum, Katihar that some of the bills sent to the complainant were excessive and inflated. On being noticed, the other side, opposite party, appeared and filed counter version. The case was decided on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition and the averments made by the opposite party in the written version. No evidence was adduced by them in support of their respective case. Sec.13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) very clearly lays down that the Consumer Disputes have to be settled on the basis of evidences brought to the notice of the District Forum by the parties where the opposite party denies or disputed the allegations and on the basis of evidences brought to its notice by the complainant when the opposite party omits to take any action to represent his case. But no evidence either in the form of affidavits or witnesses on oath was produced before the District Forum and the case was decided merely on the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties. Therefore, the impugned order can not be sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside and the case is being remanded to the District Forum for disposal in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There is no order as to costs.