Smt. Saroj Rajwade & N.K. Vaidya, Members - These counter appeals have been filed against the same order dtd. 19-9-1995 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in their Case No. 360/94 wherein the Forum has cancelled the bills dtd. 4-4-1994, 5-4-1994 and 6-4-1994 issued by opposite party(Telephone department) and has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 1.000/- as cost.

2. The contentions of the complainant in Appeal No. 741 of 1995 are that the Forum has not ordered reconnection of disconnected telephone, has not directed payment of compensation nor has taken into consideration this fact that the' opposite party has been issuing bills despite dis. connection of phone.

3. The main contention of the opposite party in Appeal No. 746/95 are that he was not given opportunity of cross-examining the complainant and of adducing evidence though his witness was present before the Forum. The other argument of the appellant is that the matter should have been referred to arbitration.

4. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the records of the case.

5. So far as the opposite party's argument for referring the matter to arbitration is concerned, we agree that it is neither mandatory nor desirable to do so for reasons explained by the Forum in detail.

6. Similarly, the argument of complainant in their appeal regarding issuance of bills for the period telephone remained disconnected is concerned, it was not raised before the Forum in the complaint and hence cannot be raised in appeal. Similarly the directions for reconnection were not asked for in the complaint. However, if the complaint was found to be correct directions for reconnection should have been given in normal course.

7. So far as the argument of the opposite party regarding denial of opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and to adduce evidence is concerned we find that in first Appeal Nos. 259, 310, 321 of 1993 decided on 9-5-1996, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as overleaf:

"when a party insists that he wants to cross-examine the deponent, of the affidavit to prove that the affidavit cannot be relied upon natural justice requires that permission to cross-examine that witness should be given."

8. As such as per directives of the National Commission in the case quoted above, we accept the Appeal No. 746/95 of the opposite party and remand the case to the District Forum for de-novo disposal, allowing the parties to cross-examine such of the witnesses whose affidavits have been filed and whom the other parties wish to cross-examine. It will be open to the District Forum to treat the affidavits on record as the depositions-in-chief of the concerned witnesses or take further affidavits and treat them as examination-in-chief of the deponents.

9. Similarly. we accept the appeal of the complainant and remand the case to the -District Forum for orders on the issues of re-connection of telephone disconnected and compensation to be paid to the complainant also, if the Forum comes to the conclusion that the bills dt. 4-4-1995, 5-4-1995, 6-4-1995 deserve to be quashed.

10. Thus, both these appeals are partly allowed and the case is remanded for disposal as per direction given above.

Both the cases remanded to District Forum for de novo disposal with the direction(i) to allow the parties to cross-examine the witness(ii) for reconnection of telephones and compensation.