LAWS(NCD)-1993-4-248

TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER Vs. ACHARYA JAGDISHCHANDRA HARISHCHANDRA

Decided On April 20, 1993
TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER Appellant
V/S
ACHARYA JAGDISHCHANDRA HARISHCHANDRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of Complaint No.296/92 filed by the Respondent Acharya Jagdishchandra Harishchandra against the Telecom District, Mehsana. There was also similar complaint by other subscriber Laxmi Trading Co. , Kalol but we do not know whether there is appeal against the judgment or not and, therefore, we are deciding this appeal with regard to Original Complaint No.296/92 only and are not reproducing any facts regarding the second appeal.

(2.) It appears that the respondent complainant filed a complaint on 24.8.92 and written statement was filed on 20.11.92. There is neither any affidavit filed with the complaint nor there is any verification. The written statement is filed with verification but without any affidavit. It appears that immediately after filing of a written statement the order has been-passed by the District Forum on 27.11.92 i. e. within a week from the filing of the written statement. We have time and again drawn the attention of the District Forum, Mehsana that, a case cannot be decided merely on pleadings. Pleadings are not evidence and each party should be told by the District Forum atleast to file an affidavit and other evidence in their possession. It has also been settled by the Hon'ble National Commission that merely because the bill is more than the average, only on that ground an order cannot be passed particularly when there were only pleadings before the District Forum. However, in the instant case, the District Forum has passed an order in absence of any evidence. The complaint produced before us does not show that there was even verification. Mr. Dave, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Department, therefore submits that this is a case where there is total non-application of mind and the learned Judge ought not to have passed an order merely because the complainant had made wild allegations against the bills. We accept the arguments of Mr. Dave and hold that the District Forum cannot pass an order giving relief to the complainant in total absence of any evidence and merely on pleadings.

(3.) If we allow the appeal, the complainant will suffer because he might not be aware that he is required to produce any evidence. We do not want to punish the complainant but we are of the opinion that considering the preamble and the scheme of the Act, the District Forum ought to have informed the complainant that he shall have to file an affidavit and produce the evidence. Inspite of our previous judgments, this practice is followed by the District Forum which we are not able to appreciate. ORDER the appeal is allowed so far the Complaint No.296/92 is concerned. We set aside the judgment of the District Forum with regard to that case and remand the matter to the District Forum to decide afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties to file their affidavit and evidence if they so desire. The District Forum shall give precedence to this case. A copy of the judgment may be circulated to all District Forum.