GUPTA TRADING CO Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TELEPHONE I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.