DEPOT MANAGER, RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS CORP. vs BHAGWAN SINGH CHAUHAN

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 26.9.91 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No. 651/90 by which a sum of Rs. 120/- was awarded to the complainant-respondent from the opposite parties-appellants. Briefly put the facts are that on 16.7.90 at 4.30 p.m. the complainant-respondent obtained ticket of bus No. RNP 1634 of the RSRTC for the journey from Beawar to Ajmer. The complainant has alleged that when he was boarding the bus, the sleeve of the shirt on account of the broken condition of the door as some leaves(strips) were coming out involved in it and was torn. He made a complaint before the Depot Manager at Beawar but he refused to give any help to him. Thereafter he wrote a complaint to the Depot Manager Ajmer. The case of the complainant is that as the bus was not properly maintained inasmuch as the sheet was broken and sharp leaves(strips) were there, the sleeve of his shirt was torn. He, therefore, filed a complaint dated 20.7.90 for compensation as under: 1.Cost of the cloth of the shirt Rs. 100/- 2.Stitching charges of the shirt Rs. 20/- 3.Compensation for mental agony Rs. 500/- Total: Rs. 620/- It was prayed that Rs. 620/- as compensation etc. may be awarded to him. The complainant submitted photostat copy of the entry from the complaint book and ticket. He submitted his affidavit dated 25.10.90.

THE opposite party submitted version of the case. THE allegations made in the complaint were denied. It was submitted that the shirt was not torn as alleged by the complainant. It was also submitted that no complaint was made at the Beawar Depot to any officer. As the bus was properly maintained, it was roadworthy and this has been plied continuously. It was not written in the complaint which was lodged in the office of the Depot Manager, Ajmer. THE torn shirt was not shown. Photostat copies of the statement of Bhanwarpuri and Gordhan Singh were also produced. THE driver of the bus in question was Bhanwarpuri and conductor was Gordhan Singh. In the statements recorded no complaint whatsoever was made in the complaint book in respect of the fact that the door was broken and theiron strips were coming out. A letter of Asstt. Mechanical Engineer dated 22.3.91 was submitted showing that there were no defects in the bus from 4.7.90 to 17.7.90 as the alleged incident had taken place on l6.7-90.THE bus was in good condition. THE District Forum relying on the affidavit of the complainant awarded a sum of Rs. 120/- to him from the opposite parties consisting of Rs. 100/- as cost of the cloth and Rs. 20/- as stitching charges. Aggrieved the opposite parties-appellants have filed this appeal. The District Forum discarded the Mechanical Engineer''s report regarding bus No. 1634 in which it is stated that from mechanical point of view the bus was proper for the journey of the travellers. The complainant submitted his affidavit in support of the complaint on 25.10.90. The version of the case was filed on 11.4.91 and after filing the version of the case, the case was posted for arguments. On 18.9.91 arguments were heard by the President and one member of the District Forum. The order was pronounced on 26.9.91 by the two members and the President. Smt. Renuka Bhati did not hear the arguments, still she became a party to the impugned order. As a sum of Rs. 120/- was awarded by the District Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal. The complainant-respondent was represented by a lawyer in the appeal. Though he had filed the power, he did not appear before the Commission. As nobody had appeared on behalf of the complainant-respondent, we heard Mr. V.V. Mathur learned Counsel for the appellants.

On going through the record it was found that the order was passed by the President and two members though arguments were heard by the President and one member. When the arguments were not heard by Smt. Renuka Bhati, it is surprising how has she passed the order under appeal and became signatory to it. She was not a member of the Bench which heard the arguments. The arguments were only heard by the President and the member Shri Satyakishore Saxena. In these circumstances the order under appeal cannot be sustained and it has to be set aside and in this view of the matter it is not necessary to examine the merits of the appeal. The case has to be sent back for proper decision in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions of Sec. 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The order dated 26.9.91 awarding Rs. 120/- to the complainant is set aside and the case is sent back to the District Forum, Ajmer with a direction to take the complaint on its file and decide it afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned and keeping in view the provisions of Sec. 14(2) of the aforesaid Act.

THE result is that the appeal is allowed. THE order dated 26.9.91 is set aside and the case is remanded. As the appeal was not opposed on behalf of the respondent, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.