FARM FOOD vs GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS Revision Application is directed against the order dated June 27,1996 passed by the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Valsad (District Forum for short) below application dated June27,1996 filed in Complaint No. 25 of 1992.

THE District Forum had dismissed the petitioner''s aforesaid complaint on the ground that it is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act for short) and that the relief which it had sought could not be granted under Section 14 of the said Act. In appeal, being Appeal No. 224 of 1993, this Commission, by its order dated December 24, 1993 held to the effect that the petitioner was a consumer within the meaning of the said provision of the Act and that the relief sought in the complaint could be granted. This Commission, therefore, allowed the petitioner''s appeal and remanded the matter to the District Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law. THEreafter, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint. THE petitioner and the opponent preferred appeals being Appeals No. 216 and 218 of 1994 before this Commission against the decision of the District Forum. This Commission, again, by is order dated July 14,1995 remanded the matter to the District Forum directing it to permit both the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence and decide the petitioner''s complaint afresh in accordance with law. THEreafter the matter was again taken up for hearing by the District Forum. The petitioner made application dated June 27, 1996 requesting the District Forum to direct the concerned officer of the opponent to remain present for cross examination. Below this application, the opponent''s learned Advocate made an endorsement to the effect that the opponent would like to cross examine the complainant first and that law point should be decided first. No objection was raised against the request for cross examination of the opponent''s officer. President of the District Forum, however, by his impugned order held to the effect that the complaint could be disposed of on documentary evidence and the procedure under the Act being summary proceeding, the petitioner''s request could not be granted. It is submitted that no Member was present at the time when the President heard the application and passed the above order. The order is signed only by the President of the District Forum. The petitioner has preferred this revision application contending that the President of the District Forum had acted illegally in exercise of the jurisdiction of the District Forum and that there would be serious prejudice to the petitioner if it is not allowed to cross examine the officer of the opponent who has filed affidavit.

As observed above, endorsement made by the opponent''s learned Advocate below the aforesaid application does not show that there was any objection against the cross examination of the officer of the opponent. In fact, this Commission had, by its order dated July 14, 1995, directed the District Forum to give opportunity to both the parties to lead both documentary and oral evidence. Under the circumstances, we fail to see how the petitioner''s request to permit cross examination of the opponent''s officer could have been refused. The learned Advocate appearing for the opponent submitted before us that the opponent had no objection if the petitioner is permitted to cross examine the officer of the opponent.

WE are also unable to understand as to how the petitioner''s application could have been dealt with or disposed of by the President of the District Forum alone. The complaint was required to be heard by the President and atleast one Member. However, if the President and one Member had heard the complaint or the application, the order was required to be signed both by the President and the Member or Members who heard the matter. The impugned order is signed only by the President of the District Forum. The President of the District Forum, in our opinion, has acted illegally and/ or with material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction of the District Forum. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. In the result, we allow this revision application and set aside the order dated June 27, 1996 passed below petitioner''s application dated June 27, 1996 seeking permission to allow it to cross examine the officer of the opponent who had filed the affidavit. We grant the said application of the opponent and direct that the opponent should keep its officer who had filed affidavit present before the District Forum for cross examination. The District Forum is directed to permit the petitioner to cross examine the said officer. It need not be stated that if the opponent desires to cross examine the witnesses who have filed affidavits on behalf of the complainant, it should be permitted to do so before the complainant cross examines the opponent''s officer as aforesaid. The District Forum is further directed to strictly comply with the directions given by this Commission in its earlier decisions and dispose of the complaint pending before it in accordance with law. We strongly disapprove the manner in which the District Forum has conducted the hearing of the petitioner''s complaint. There will be no order as to costs. Revision application allowed.