BINATONE ELECTRONICS LTD. vs RACHNA MITTAL

BEING dissatisfied with the order dated 20.2.91 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 1183/90, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 before the District Forum have filed this appeal. The complaint was also filed against M/s. Kalinga Electronics, Station Road, Jodhpur arrayed as opposite Party No. 3. By the impugned order opposite parties No. 1 & 2 i.e., appellants were jointly and severally directed to return the price of T.V. amounting to Rs. 12,500/- on delivery of the T.V. set by the complainant and also to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from 24.1.90. A sum of Rs. 1000/- was awarded as compensation. Rest of the claim of the complainant-respondent was dismissed. The facts have been stated in the impugned order and it is not necessary to recount them. Suffice it to mention that the complainant filed a complaint for replacement of the T.V. set by a new T.V. set and if they do not replace the set, then they may be directed to pay the cost of the T.V. with 18% interest from 24.11.90. The complaint was filed on 22.11.90. Notices were awaited on 22.12.90 as they were not received after service.

VERSION of the case was filed on 22.1.91 on behalf of opposite party No. 1. Notice for hearing of 22.12.90 was not served on opposite party No. 2 Master Care Services, Jaipur. It was received back with the report that the office was not at the place of address. After filing of the reply, the complaint was posted for arguments. A perusal of the proceedings dated 11.2.91 shows that on that day representative of opposite party No. 1 was present. Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 were absent and their service was not effected. The District Forum heard the arguments against opposite party No. 1 on 11.2.91 and posted the complaint for orders on 20.2.91. It appears from the proceedings dated 11.2.91 that the arguments were heard by the President and one Member, Smt. Vijay Loonia. The order under appeal was passed by the President, Shri Amar Singh Godara and one Member Shri Raj Kumar Jain. The presence of the President and the Member is mentioned in the order appealed against. The appeal deserves to be accepted on this ground alone that arguments in the complaint were heard by the President and Smt. Vijay Loonia, Member whereas the order appealed against was pronounced by the President and one Member, Shri Raj Kumar Jain. Smt. Vijay Loonia, Member who heard the arguments is not a party to the order. Mr. Raj Kumar Jain, who is a party to the order was not a Member of the Bench which heard the arguments. It has been held by us in a number of cases that a member of a quasi-judicial authority who has no occasion to hear the arguments should not be a party to the order as it is in flagrant disregard of the well recognised principles of natural justice. How could Mr. Raj Kumar Jain, Member of the District Forum decide a complaint regarding which he had not heard the arguments. At the risk of repetition it has to be stated that the arguments in the complaint were heard by the President and Smt. Vijay Loonia, Member. On this ground alone the order has to be set aside. In this case version of the case was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1. It is not signed by opposite party No. 1. There is also an un sworn affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 1. The version of the case was filed as is apparent from the proceedings dated 22.1.91. The version of the case should not and cannot be ignored on the ground that it is not signed by the party. The District Forum could however ask it to sign so as to remove the irregularity. From the proceedings dated 11.2.91 it is apparent that opposite party No. 1 was present and the other opposite parties were absent as they were not served. It is surprising that without effecting proper service on the opposite parties other than opposite party No. 1 arguments were heard by the District Forum, Jaipur. It was open to the complainant to drop opposite parties No. 2 & 3 which the complainant did not do. The complaint ought to have been decided after effecting service on all the opposite parties. The trial of the complaint was mismanaged and against the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 "the Act" and also for the reasons mentioned above. The order appealed against is bad in law and cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, set aside and the case will have to be sent back to the District Forum with a direction to take the complaint on its file and proceed to try it in accordance with the procedure laid down under Sec. 13(1) of the Act after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and keeping in view Sec. 14(2) and (2A) of the Act

The result is that the appeal is allowed, the order dated 20.2.91 passed in Complaint Case No. 1183/90 by the District Forum, Jaipur is set aside. The case is sent back to the District Forum, Jaipur to try the complaint and decide it afresh in accordance with the directions given hereinabove.

THE appeal is allowed and the case is remanded. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.