MAHENDRA SINGH SINGHVI vs Union of India

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) is directed against the order dated 13.8.1990 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 40/89. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. As we have come to the conclusion that this order has to be set aside and the case has to be remanded to the District Forum, Jaipur for a fresh decision, it is not necessary to give a detailed resume of the facts leading to this appeal. Suffice it to state that the complainant-appellant filed a complaint under Section 12of the Act against the opposite parties (Union of India, Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Alfa Automobiles, Jaipur) praying that the opposite parties may be directed (l) to deliver the vehicle to the complainant before 31.3.1989; (2) that the opposite parties may be directed to make payment of interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of the vehicle; (3) that the opposite parties if fail to deliver the vehicle to the complainant before 31.3.1989 then the opposite parties may be directed to make payment of loss suffered by the complainant for making excess payment of income tax as a result of non-delivery of vehicle to the complainant before 31.3.1989. They may further be directed to driver the vehicle at the rate of Rs. 89,204/- without realising increased excise duty from the complainant; and (4) that suitable compensation may be awarded.

ON behalf of opposite parties No. 2 & 3, an application was submitted on 29.4.1989 stating that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the complaint against them. A reply was submitted on behalf of the complainant to this application. The complaint was dismissed in default on 25.11.1989. It was restored by order dated 23.3.1990. By order dated 20.7.1990 exparte proceedings were taken against the opposite parties. No reply contesting the compliant was filed on behalf of the opposite parties. The President of the District Forum heard the arguments on 8.8.1990 and dismissed the complaint. The order under appeal is signed by the President and one member. Aggrieved against the dismissal, the complainant-appellant has filed this appeal. We heard learned Counsel for the appellant on 18.9.1991. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted written arguments after delivering a copy thereof to the learned Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the arguments in the complaint were heard by the President, Shri J.P. Baasal, and the other member (Shri Beni Prasad) was hearing other cases. At the relevant time there were two members of the District Forum viz.. President and one member. After hearing the arguments on 8.8.1990 the matter was posted for orders .on 13.8.1990. The order was signed by the President and one member. In this connection it is pertinent to reproduce para 3(1) of the memo of appeal which is as under;- " YEH KI MAMLEY KI SUNWAI UPBHOGTA SANRAKSHAN ADHINIYAM KA HAL BANAYA GAYA KORUM KE ANUSAR NAHI KI GAYI HAI NA JILA MUNCH JAIPUR MAI AISA KIYA GAYA HAI. IS PRAKRAN KI SUNWAI MANNIYA SHRI J.P. BANSAL DWARA KI GAYI AUR DUSRA SADASYA SHRI BANI PARSAD NE IS VISAHY MAI BEHES NAHI SUNI TATHA BEHES KE DAURAN WO HAMESHA KI TAREH UNHE DIYA GAYE MUKADDME KE VISHAY MAI KARYA KARTA RAHA JILA MUNCH JAIPUR MAI DONO SADASYA ALAG ALAG KARYA VIBHAKT KAR BEHES SUNTA HAI JO KI UPBHOGTA SANRAKSHAN ADHINIYAM KI BHAWANA KE VIPRIT HAI AUR ISI ADHAR PAR YEH APEEL SWEEKAR KI JAKAR DIYA GAYA FAISLA NIRAST KIYE JANE YOYGE HAI IS VISHYA MAI WAKIL APILARTHI JO KI MAHHANTAM NYAYALAYA MAI BHI EK WAKIL HAI KA SHAPAT PATRA PRUSTUT KIYA JA RAHA HAI."

Mr. Ashok Mehta, learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant has submitted his affidavit in support of his contention. He has deposed that the complaint was heard by Shri J.P. Bansal, President despite objection having been raised by him and he told that he may go on arguing and that when he was arguing the complaint on behalf of the complainant, the other member, Shri Beni Prasad was hearing the other cases. The procedure adopted by the District Forum at that time in regard to the hearing of the cases as stated in the affidavit by Shri Ashok Mehta was this : " YEH KI JAIPUR UPBHOGTA MUNCH NAI NIBHTT ROOP SE APNE CLIENT KI SUNWAI KE LIYE JATA HAI. FORUM MAI SHRI J. P. BANSAL VAH SHRI BANI PRASHAD SUNWAI KE LIYE PRAKARAN KO ALAG ALAG SUNWAI KARTA HAI IS BARE MAI ADHIKARTA DWARA PURB MAI AITRAJ BHI KIYA GAYA HAI PARANTU MAMLE KO SHEGHRA NIPTAYA JANE KI DUHAI DETA HUA PRAKARAN KI SUNWAI EK SADASYA DWARA KI JATI HAI. UPROKT PRAKARAN MAI BHI SUNWAI SHRI J. P. BANSAL DWARA KI GAYI THI PARANTU FAISLE PAR DONO SADASYA SHRI J. P. BANSAL VAH SHRI BANI PARSAD KE HASTAKSHER HAI."

TIME was sought after the submission of the affidavit dated 20.5.1991 on behalf of the respondents. A reply to the appeal was submitted. In the reply it was stated that the allegation made against the Members of the District Forum was not warranted. It was stated that the President of the District Forum, Jaipur and the other Member, Shri Beni Prasad both heard the arguments and they were not hearing the other cases. No affidavit controverting the affidavit of Shri Ashok Mehta was submitted by the respondents. Be that as it may it appears from the proceedings dated 8.8.1990 of the District Forum that the arguments were heard by the President of the District Forum. In the order-sheet dated 8.8.1990 the presence of the President and other member is not mentioned except that the order-sheet is signed by the President. There is nothing in the order-sheet dated 8.8.1990 to show that the other member Shri Bern Prasad participated as a member of the Bench of the District Forum when the arguments were heard. The proceedings dated 8.8.1990 when the arguments were heard, make it clear that the President heard the arguments and he signed the order-sheet. The order was passed on 13.8.1990. It was signed by Shri Beni Prasad, member and the President. The other member did not hear the arguments in the complaint still he became a party to the order. It has been held by the State Commission in various cases that member/s of a quasi-judicial Tribunal who pass the order should atleast hear the party before passing the order and if any order has been passed by a member of the Tribunal or Forum who has had no occasion to hear the arguments and still passed the order, that order is vitiated because it is against the fundamental or the well recognized principles of natural justice.

AS the order appealed against is signed by the President and one member and further for the fact that the member who has signed the order had not heard the arguments, the order is bad in law and stands vitiated and it has to be set aside. In view of this, it is not necessary to examine the merits of the case and the case has to be sent back after setting aside the order. The appeal succeeds and the order dated 13.8.1990 passed in Complaint Case No. 40/89 by the District Forum, Jaipur is set aside. The District Forum is directed to take the complaint to its file and decide it afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the concerned parties of the hearing keeping in view the provisions of Sec. 14(2) of the Act as they stand today. The District Forum shall issue notice to the concerned parties for appearance and thereafter take further proceedings in the complaint. The appeal succeeds and the order dated 13.8.1990 is set aside and the case is remanded as indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs of the appeal. Appeal allowed.