A contested consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can only be decided on the basis of evidence and not de hors thereof.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President—Whether a lis under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, pertaining to services hired, can be decided merely on the basis of the complaint and the controverting counter-version thereto alone? This is the focal threshold question in this appeal.

2. The relevant facts lie in a narrow compass, but deserve notice in some detail. Dr. Chander Bhan respondent had preferred a somewhat brief single page complaint, giving rise to this appeal, before the District Forum at Hisar on the 23rd May, 1990. Therein it was alleged that the complainant was constructing a house on plot No. 462, Sector 15-A, Hisar, wherein for the supply of electricity a domestic meter No. HB-526 was installed, for which payment on the basis of average bill from January, 1990 onwards was duly made. However, on the 9th May, 1990 a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 39 of the Electricity Act was registered against him by the police at the instance of the Electricity Department for stealing electric energy through bypassing the installed meter. Further a notice-cum-bill amounting to Rs. 3961.50 was issued against the complainant, and, apparently, the said amount was deposited under protest. The primal grievance of the complainant was that the bill amount was false because he had never consumed the energy as had been shown therein, and consequently, he was not liable to pay the aforesaid amount. The relief claimed was that a direction be issued to the Department to withdraw the said illegal bill. Only a copy of the notice-cum-bill was attached to the somewhat cryptic complaint.

3. Notice was issued to the opposite party by the District Forum on the said complaint for the 20th June, 1990. In response thereto a counter version, controverting the material allegations in the complaint, was duly filed. The material part of the averments was in para 6 thereof, which deserves notice in extenso:-

"6. On dated 9.5.90, the premises of Sh. Chander Bhan was raided by Sh. G.K. Sharma, Asstt. Director Vigilance, H.S.E.B., Panchkula, along with H.C. Goyal, J.E., Sh. Ganeshi Lal Inspector of Police and Staff of S.H.O. Hisar. The consumer was stealing electricity by connecting one phase direct, bypassing the Electric meter. The F.I.R. No. 107 dt. 9.5.90 was lodged under Section 379 of IPC, Section 39, Electricity Act, with S.H.O. Civil Line, Hisar and a sum of Rs. 3,951,50 charged to the consumer as per Sale Circular No. 28/89. The connected load of the consumer was 5.560 KW." Apart from the above, the firm case set up by the opposite party was that the amount of the Bill was calculated wholly in accordance with the Sales Circular No. 28/89 dated 31st July, 1989, duly issued by the Haryana State Electricity Board. True copies of the service connection order, the checking report dated the 9th May, 1990 and the relevant Sales Circular dated 31st July, 1989, were annexed to the counter version.

4. A close perusal of the record discloses that after the receipt of the counter version, no evidence of either party was at all adduced. The case was fixed forthwith for hearing on the 5th July, 1990 at Hisar. Apparently, after hearing the arguments of the parties on the basis of the complaint and the counter version alone, the Forum proceeded to record its order now under appeal.

5. The very brief discussion of the merits in paragraph 3 of the order aforesaid would show that after noticing the matters, which were not in dispute, the Forum forthwith as a dictum concluded that the inspection report was worst than cryptic and a highly placed person like the complainant must not suffer simply by recording a phase used to commit theft. Consequently, it was held that the relevant report was not correctly prepared and no action could be taken on that basis, and the same was summarily quashed. The complaint was allowed with the direction that the amount deposited by the complainant be adjusted in the future bills.

6. Whilst assailing the