N.S. Singh, President.

Upon hearing Mr.S.C.Shyam, learned Additional C.G.S.C. for the Appellant as well as Mr.B.K. Deb Roy, learned counsel for the Respondent and also on perusal of the available materials on record particularly, the impugned order dated 27.7.2000 passed by the learned District Forum, West Garo Hills, Tura in C.P. No.3/1999, we are of the view that this appeal can be disposed of without the case record in connection with C.P. No.3/1999 and, accordingly, the same s hereby disposed of with the following judgment and order.

 

2. According to the complainant Shri Subir Mazumdar, despite the complaint made by him to the appropriate authority for making his telephone No..20784 in order, installed in his chamber-cum-residence, the Telephone department did not rectify the fault, in other words, did not repair the telephone and that being the position, the telephone was out of order till 2.7.99 and he also informed the Department of Telecommunication that he was going to Consumer Forum for Redressal of his grievance.

 

3. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, the learned District Forum ordered the Department of Telecommunication to pay Rs.2, 500/- as compensation for the loss incurred by the complainant which includes the deduction of rent for the period the telephone remained out of order and such payment shall be made within one month failing which an interest @ 12% was to be charged, under the impugned order dated 27.7.2000. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 27.7.2000, the present appellant filed this appeal.

 

4. After proper application of our mind I this matter, we are of the view that the appellant could make out a case to justify the interference with the impugned order dated 27.7.2000 passed by the learned District Forum with the following reasons:

 

(i)                  The findings and observations of the learned District Forum are contradictory inasmuch as, in 2^nd paragraph of the related order dated 27.7.2000, the learned District Forum recorded that the counsel for the O.P. pleads that actually the telephone was out of order only for 7 days and also pleads for the filing of the complaint register and , despite the existence of such findings, the learned District Forum further made observation to the extent that the opposite party did not take any steps and did not bother to appear in the Forum Court in-spite of notice etc.. The relevant observations of the learned District Forum are important and relevant for just determination of the real points in controversy between the parties and, accordingly, the same are quoted below:

 

 

“ Heard both the parties. The counsel for the O.P. pleads that actually the telephone was out of order only for 7 days and also pleads for the filing of the complaint register.

On perusal of the case record we find that O.P. did not take any steps and did not bother to appear in the Forum Court in-spite of Notice having been served and reminder issued, which makes us think that when the DOT does not bother to respond to the Forum Court in way what they would respond to consumer’s grievances is anybody’s guess”.

 

This clearly shows that such inconsistent finding of the learned District Forum is a vague order and, apart from that, the learned District Forum did not record its own finding on the pleadings on the Opposite Party that “actually the said telephone was out of order for only 7 days” except the recording of the counsel for the opposite party in that record. Be that as it may, this Commission need not go more into depth as sufficient reason is made with the above observation for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.7.2000 passed by the learned District Forum in C.P. No. 3/99 s set aside. However, it is made clear that to secure the needs of justice, the case being C.P. No.3 of 1999 is sent back to the learned District Forum, West Garo Hills , Tura for denovo trial of it. It is further made clear that the learned District Forum shall follow all the procedures and provisions of law laid down under chapter 3 particularly. Section 13 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 while disposing the said C.P. case No.3/1999 within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned.

 

Liberty is also granted to the parties concerned to exchange their documents and supporting evidence and show cause statement in support of their respective cases before the learned District Forum. Further liberty is granted to the parties to adduce evidence by producing witnesses in support of their respective cases if so advised. The parties are also at liberty to settle the matter amicably outside the District Forum if so advised.

 

5. For the reasons, observations and direction made above, this appeal is disposed of but, no costs.

 

Office is directed to furnish s copy of this judgment and order to the learned counsel appearing for the parties so as to enable them to highlight the existence of this order to the parties concerned.

 

Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned District Forum, West Garo Hills, Tura.