Denial of cross-examination in adjudication violates the principles of natural justice and fair play, warranting the quashing of the resultant order.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 27 December 2017 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Mumbai District, Bandra, Mumbai allowing the respondent’s application seeking recovery of Rs.23,981/- on account of the bill dated 30 December 2014 raised by the respondent on the petitioner.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. On 14 December 2014, the petitioner was travelling to Dubai with her son. At the airport, the petitioner purchased sim card for a fixed plan of Rs.3,500/- from the respondent. The duration of the sim card was for a period beginning from 14 December 2014 to 21 December 2014.

3. The petitioner was shocked to receive a bill dated 30 December 2014 from the respondent calling upon the petitioner to make payment of Rs.28,543/- on or before 31 January 2015 and on failure, the said amount payable after 31 January 2015 was Rs.29,143/-.

4. Since, the amount was not paid, the respondent filed Application No. 8343 of 2015 before the Permanent Lok Adalat (‘PLA’) claiming Rs.23,981/-. In February 2016, the petitioner filed her written statement opposing the application on various grounds mentioned therein including the ground that “Customer Agreement Form” does not bear the signature of the petitioner and also the documents annexed to the application does not bear the photograph of the petitioner etc.

5. In June 2017, the petitioner made an application for cross- examination of the witness of the respondent, but same was rejected by an order dated 26 September 2017. The said rejection order was passed by only one member although the PLA consisted of three members.

6. The parties concluded their submissions and impugned order came to be passed on 27 December 2017 allowing the application of the respondent and directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.23,981/- with interest thereon at 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the application till its realization.

7. It is on the above backdrop, that the present petition was filed challenging the impugned order dated 27 December 2017. On 29 March 2019, ad-interim relief was granted to the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits the amount due and payable as per the impugned order. Petitioner has deposited the said amount as per order dated 29 March 2019.

8. On 17 July 2019, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court admitted the petition and directed that the amount deposited by the petitioner shall be returned on the condition that, the petitioner shall file an undertaking, that if ultimately the petition is dismissed the petitioner will pay the said sum. However, petitioner has not withdrawn amount deposited under the above orders dated 29 March 2019.

9. The petition is now before us for final hearing. From various orders passed in the present petition, it appears that respondent No.1 the Cellular Company has not appeared although notice was served on 14 June 2019.

10. We have heard Mr. Khokhawala, learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance perused the documents annexed to the petition.

11. The impugned order is passed by the PLA under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The PLA in the impugned order has observed that efforts to settle the dispute amicably failed and, therefore, the dispute was decided on merits.

12. The PLA has allowed the application of the respondent on the ground that receipt of service is not disputed by the petitioner. The respondent has produced computerised data by complying with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. The said document shows use