A. NAGARAJA RAO vs BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK

THIS appeal, by the complainant, is directed against the order dated 4.2.1993, passed by the District Forum, Tumkur, in complaint No. DCFT/ 166/Comt.91-92 dismissing the complaint. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: The complainant who had obtained a cheque dated 31.12.1991, for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in his favour from the District Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, presented the same to O.P. No. 1-Bank for debiting the said amount to his account on 9.1.1992. The said cheque was valid upto 15.1.1992, to be encashed on or before 15.1.1992. Due to lapse and negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties cheque was not encashed, but it was returned to the complainant on 17.1.1992 stating that it was beyond time. The complainant on the basis of these averments, sought the compensation from the Opposite Parties.

THE Opposite Parties filed their version disputing the allegations made by the complainant regarding lapse and negligence on their part and sought the complaint to be dismissed. We have called for the records and received.

We find a serious infirmity in the order recorded by the District Forum, Tumkur. Therefore, we are not going to consider the merits of the case.

THE complainant filed the complaint on 1.10.1992. Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2, filed their objections disputing the allegations made by the complainant regarding the lapse and negligence on their part. THE objections filed by the Opposite Parties has not even been signed by the Opposite Parties. THE District Forum has not considered this aspect of the matter. After the Opposite Parties filed their objections, the records show that the complaint was posted for hearing. It was heard and disposed of by the District Forum on 4.2.1993. The complainant did not adduce any evidence nor did he file any affidavit in evidence. No documents came to be marked. Even the averments made in the complaint were not verified by the complainant.

THIS would clearly go to show that the District Forum, Tumkur, did not record any evidence of either of the parties, no ducuments came to be marked. The provisions of Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 show that the consumer dispute has to be settled on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the parties. The provisions would further go to show that even if the Opposite Party omits or fails to represent his case, it is the duty of the District Forum to record the evidence and base its finding on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. In the present case, the Opposite Parties had disputed the allegations made by the complainant. In the present case, as it is evident, the complainant did neither lead any oral evidence nor did file the affidavit in evidence.

HAVING regard to these facts, it is clear that the District Forum, Tumkur has proceeded to record the finding against the mandatory provisions contained under Section 13(2) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum, Tumkur, is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. ORDER In the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 4.2.1993, recorded by the District Forum, Tumkur, in Complaint No. DCFT/166/Comt./91-92, is set aside. The complaint is remitted to the District Forum, Tumkur, with a direction to register the complaint on its original number and proceed with the case afresh in accordance with law. The Opposite Parties are at liberty to file their version duly signed and both the parties are at liberty to lead evidence during the enquiry. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.