LALA SAMACHAR vs General Manager, Telecom Department

THE appellant is the original complainant. Being dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, Ludhiana (dated 26.2.1992) in Complaint Case No. 9 of 1992, he has filed this appeal.

THE short facts are that the appellant is the editor of Lala Samachar Newspaper, having his office at HE 93, Jamalpur Colony, Ludhiana. According to him, a few years back he had applied for telephone connection through his son Mr. Anoop Pratap Bhasin in the name of the Lala Samachar Newspaper, but nothing happened thereafter and that curiously enough, he received a bill for Rs. 250/- from the opposite party-respondent, being the rental charges for the period 1.10.1991 to 19.12.1991 in respect of Telephone No. 70909, which, according to him, was without any service having been rendered by the opposite party. THE appellant apprehended that the said Telephone No., which was to be installed at his residence, was misused by the Telephone Department. He prayed that the opposite party be directed to provide the same telephone number at his residence. In response to the notice from the District Forum, Mr. S.K. Thaman, Telephone Inspector, put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party and made a statement before the District Forum that Telephone No. 70909 was, in fact, applied for by Mr. Anoop Pratap Bhasin, Editor of Lala Samachaf Newspaper, and the same was installed at his premises on 25.1.1990. THEreafter, the said applicant got the same telephone number shifted to House No. 5249, Street No. 2, Shivaji Nagar, Samrala Road, Ludhiana, and that the number of that telephone was changed to 62868. Relying on the statement of Mr. S.K. Thaman, the District Forum found that the complainant not being the subscriber of Telephone No. 70909, cannot be termed as ''consumer'' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the Act'') and dismissed the complaint. The complainant-appellant has vehemently contended that he had urged before the District Forum that he had been denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the opposite party, but the District Forum ignored his request to cross-examine the witness. After examining the record and hearing the parties, we feel that the complainant had not been afforded the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. S.K. Thaman - a witness of the opposite party - and as a consequence thereof, the District Forum has come to rely upon the uncontested evidence of the witness and came to the conclusion that it was Mr. Anoop Pratap Bhasin and not the complainant was the applicant of the telephone connection. We may, however, add to what we have said earlier that justice should not merely be done, but must also appear to have been done. With these observations, we set aside the order of the District Forum and remand the case back to the District Forum for affording an opportunity to the complainant to cross-examine Mr. S.K. Thaman, witness of the opposite party, and dispose of the case afresh in the light of the evidence as it finally stands.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Record of the District Forum, along with the order, be sent back immediately. Appeal allowed.