AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 252 wordsAGAINST the order dated August 6, 1991, passed by the District Forum, Bathinda, in complaint case No. 25 of 23.2.1991, the complainant-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the Act'').
BY the impugned order, the District Forum order that the Opposite Party should pay Rs. 700/- to the complainant by way of compensation for its delayed refunding the service line charges to him. The order under appeal is signed by one of the members of the District Forum, Bathinda. It is not necessary to make a detailed probe into the matter, for we are of the opinion that this appeal should succeed on a short point namely that the order atleast should have been passed by two members of the District Forum. In view of this one single member of the District Forum, Bathinda, while passing the order under appeal, has exercised his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and that has affected the rights of the respondents as it was passed by a single member and therefore, it has to be set aside.
The appeal is allowed and the order dated 6.8.1991 passed in complainant No. 25 of 1991 is set aside. The case is sent back to the District Forum, Bathinda, to decide the complaint afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and keeping in view the observation made herein above. The parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.