This appeal is directed against the Final Order passed by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Jalpaiguri dated 31.07.2018 in reference to CC No 15 of 2018. The fact of the case in nutshell that one B. Chakraborty a senior citizen resident of Jalpaiguri was a consumer of Vodafone Prepaid Mobile Service Bearing Mobile Number 7063300293 and he purchased the said mobile sim from store manager of Vodafone store at DBC Road, Jalpaiguri. The said mobile sim was crashed on 07.04.2017 and the Complainant instantly reported same to the store manager. The store manager forcefully gave him a Post-Paid sim without maintaining any official formalities. The Complainant was reluctant to accept the said Post-Paid sim but it was deliberately and forcefully compelled him to receive the same. The Complainant has not used the said sim from the very inception and kept it unused and the prepaid sim was lying inside the mobile phone where about Rs. 27 to 28 was still lying in the balance. Finding no other alternatives, the Appellant/Complainant paid Rs. 60 as per the demand of the O.P./Respondent for the cost of replacement of prepaid sim but the sim has till remain locked and the Complainant could not avail the mobile service since 10.04.2017 on 13.05.2017 a messenger of the Opposite Party came to the Complainant’s house with a Post-Paid Bill which was denied by the Complainant to accept. The Complainant on 16.05.2017 submitted a prayer before the SDO, Jalpaiguri against the unfair trade practice of the O.P. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted a written complaint before the A.D of Consumer Affairs Department, Jalpaiguri where also the O.P. remains absent and for that reason the Complainant approached one Consumer activists Mr. Goutam Deb who ultimately registered the Consumer Complaint against the O.P who contested the case by filing W.V and denied the allegations levelled against the company and mentioned that upon the request of the Complainant the mobile set was activated on 28.01.2016 and the said prepaid sim was converted to Post-Paid connection with the consent of the Complainant. Again, on the request of the Complainant the said Post-Paid re-converted to prepaid on 11.05.2017 and the said mobile set was activated in a prepaid connection and the contents of Complaint petition raising allegation of irregularities against the O.P. was false and frivolous and the Complaint liable to be dismissed. Ld. Forum at the time of adjudicating the dispute found that while the sim of the Complainant was crashed, he applied for the Post-Paid sim service on 07.04.2017 and the same sim was enjoyed by him till 10.05.2017 and ultimately the Post-Paid sim again reconverted to prepaid sim and as such allegations of Complainant was not found genuine and Ld. Forum also found that the documents produced by the O.P. clearly reflected that the Complainant personally filled up the forms as Annexure D3 that his identity proof for converting his prepaid sim to Post-Paid service and subsequently Post-Paid to prepaid service at his own instance. There were no latches on the part of the O.P. company and no deficiency of service was there and for that reason the instant Consumer Complaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground the Complainant/Appellant registered the appeal through his legal representatives that is Consumer Activists Mr. Goutam Deb who had registered the appeal in due course and it was admitted and notice of appeal was sent to the O.P./Respondent. In Memo of Appeal, it is mentioned that the Opposite Party at the time of submitting the W.V furnished some fake documents in Annexure D1 Annexure D2. The said documents was found fabricated and it was highlighted during the course of hearing before the Ld. Forum it was highlighted on the part of the Complainant regarding the said fake documents but the Ld. Forum did not pay any heed. The further case of the appellant is that during the course of argument the Complainant mentioned in Written Note of Argument that the said fake documents should not be relied upon but Ld. Forum at the time of delivering the Judgement did not consider the contentions raised in the written note of argument of the Complainant and failed to apply judicial mind and also did not go into the authenticity of the documents produced by the Opposite Parties in Annexure 1 and 2 and the observation of Ld. Forum was unwanted without applying any judicial mind and the process adopted by the Ld. Forum during the course of hearing of the case did not follow the principles of natural justice and the Ld. Forum has not taken any initiative to verify the authenticity of the fake documents filed by the O.P. So, the Judgement passed by the Ld. Forum should be set aside in appeal. The appeal is heard in presence of Sri. G. Deb representative of the appellant and Mr. M. Paul Ld. Advocate of the respondent.

Decision with reasons

During the course of hearing the appeal it is mentioned that the Complainant was forced to receive a Post-Paid sim in place of prepaid sim which he never used and after the crashed of the mobile sim the phone became locked and the locked sim was still inside the set but the Complainant/Appellant was forced to pay Rs. 60/- as charge for removal of crashed sim. The problem of Complainant as a bonafide Consumer was not properly redressed by the Ld. Forum at the time of adjudication of the dispute and Ld. Forum has recorded the observations in the Final Order based on the documents Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 which has challenged by the Complainant over its authenticity. Ld. Forum did not go to verify the said documents about the genuineness of the same and the entire Judgement was passed over the fake documents and the Commission has the opportunity to go into the genuineness of the fake documents upon which the Respondent/O.P. has relied upon their case. Ld. Advocate Mr. M. Paul on behalf of the respondents submitted that the process adopted by the Ld. Forum in adjudicating the dispute was a summary procedure. Generally, the Consumer Forum adopts the summary process for adjudicate the Consumer disputes in a correct manner and if one challenge any document over its genuineness then the Consumer litigation should be sent to a Competent Civil Court to reveal the truth over the allegations of fake documents. The Consumer Fora got no machinery to detect whether any documents are genuine or not.

After hearing the available documents canvassed before this Commission it appears to us that it is very much difficult on the part of the Fora to detect the genuineness of a document which is challenged for its authenticity and then the said challenge to be met up at first before relying upon the documents at the time of adjudication of the dispute. The Forum on the contrary can take the recourse of the process of obtaining handwriting expert report or taking the opportunity of scientific investigation upon a document and many institutions are well available to help the Forum to reflect proper approach over the genuineness of the documents. Moreover, in a Consumer Case there is mandatory provision for recording evidence. Section 13 of C.P. Act, 1986 clearly speaks that the Fora shall proceed to settle the Consumer Dispute on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the Complainant and the Opposite Party. Here the evidence means oral and documentary evidences. The District Forum had the opportunity also to take the recourse of the provisions of Sub Section 4, where the power of Civil Court is vested and the Ld. Forum may send the questioned documents to the expert for obtaining the opinion. Here in this case during the process of adjudication the Complainant/Appellant invariably met the allegations about the documents in Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 produced by the O.P./Respondent was fake one and it was also pointed out in Written Note of Argument before the Ld. Forum. But Ld. Forum has failed to take recourse of law to avoid the complicity and for that reason no proper adjudication could be materialized in the instant Consumer Dispute. Rather, without recording the evidences also no purposeful justice could be mitigated. Considering all these aspects, this Commission finds that the order of Ld. Forum suffers from serious irregularities in the Eye of Law and as such the Judgement and Order passed by the Ld. Forum is liable to be set aside.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the instant appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without any cost. The Final order dated 31.07.2018 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Jalpaiguri in CC No 15 on 2018 is hereby set aside. Ld. Forum shall reopen the case and adopt the process of recording evidence by the process of affidavit and interrogatories and if the Complainant/Appellant files a petition challenging the authenticity of Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 filed by the Respondent/O.P. The Ld. Forum may adopt the process of taking help of handwriting expert by sending the questioned documents for examination and opinion and in that situation the cost of expert opinion shall be borne by the Complainant/Appellant. Ld. Forum shall adjudicate the dispute after taking recourse of law and to adjudicate the matter as soon as practicable.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and a copy of the order be sent to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Jalpaiguri. The parties to this appeal are directed to appear before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Jalpaiguri for next course of action on November 11, 2021.