1. THE opposite party has filed appeal against order dated 6. 8. 2001 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana vide which complaint of Subhash Chander, respondent was accepted and demand notice was quashed and appellant was directed to refund the amount deposited by respondent along with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till the date of refund.
2. IN the said appeal, appellant has moved an application for additional evidence under Section 151 of CPC on the ground that respondent (complainant) in this case under his signatures had given an application to the appellant stating that the meter had been packed in his presence and that he had no objection if the same was sent to ME Lab for inspection. Along with application, the application which was alleged to have been given by Subhash Chander under his signatures was attached. In fact photocopy was attached. Respondent (complainant) vehemently opposed the application for filing additional evidence.
We have heard Counsel for appellant Mr. Pavit Matewal, Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for respondent and carefully gone through the file.
The complaint case remained pending in the District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana for about more than one year. No such document was placed on file. Even there is no mention of it in the written reply filed by appellant. A perusal of application which is alleged to be signed by Subhash Chander shows that it related to account No. SP-435 while admittedly the account number of respondent was SO4/0345. Therefore, it relates to different account number. It is further stated in the application alleged to have been given by Subhash Chander that the meter was packed in his presence. It is not the case of raiding party that the meter was packed in his presence. If Subhash Chander had been present at the time of removing the meter and packing the same, then his signatures must have been obtained on the checking report but the checking report did not bear signatures of Subhash Chander. The said application alleged to have been filed is undated. Therefore, prima facie it shows that it has been created afterwards. It is not the case of appellant that it was not aware of the alleged application given by Subhash Chander or it came into existence after the decision of the complaint case. The District Consumer Forum has specifically mentioned in the order that opposite party had illegally changed the meter of the complainant in the absence of complainant.
3. COUNSEL for appellant had taken a date on 22. 5. 2007 for producing a document in which Subhash Chander had stated that the meter was examined from M. E. Lab in his presence. Now the case is that Subhash Chander had given writing that meter be examined in his absence.
All these circumstances point out that this document Annexure A-1 has been manufactured afterwards and cannot be relied upon and it cannot be allowed to be placed on file as additional evidence. Hence, request for additional evidence of appellant is rejected.
4. COPIES of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Ordered accordingly.
