AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THESE two appeals i.e., FA No. 331/1999 and 332/1999 respectively are preferred against the orders dated 17.3.1999 of the Guntur District Forum in C.D. Nos. 125/1998 and 126/1998 by the opposite parties in those CDs. The respondents in these two appeals are the complainants in those two CDs respectively.
IT is not necessary to go into the merits because, after hearing both sides, we are inclined to set aside the orders under appeal and remand the CDs to the District Forum for fresh disposal. The CDs came up before the District Forum for hearing on 10.3.1999. The dockets of the two CDs show that there was no appearance of either party on that day and therefore the matters were reserved for final orders and thereafter on 17.3.1999 final orders were pronounced in both the CDs by the District Forum. However, the District Forum did not notice that already applications were filed by the opposite parties on 12.3.1994 to re-open the matters and to receive the documents and sworn statements of the opposite parties, explaining the reasons why the Counsel could not be present on 10.3.1999 when the matters were called. The Advocate appearing for the opposite parties Mr. J. Nageswara Rao himself filed the affidavit stating that because his scooter gave trouble he could not appear before the District Forum in time on 10.3.1999. The records of the District Forum in the two CDs are before us and the I.A. papers filed on 12.3.1999 are available in the records. These applications were however numbered as IA Nos. 24 and 25/1999 in C.D. Nos. 125/1998 and 126/1998 respectively. There are identical office notes on the dockets referable to these I.As. as follows : "The complaint in OP 125/98 (126/98) was on Bench on 10.3.1999 and as there was no representation on either side, the matter was closed and reserved for orders. On 17.3.1999 the OP 125/98 (126/98) was disposed and the complaint was allowed. IT is a fact that on 12.3.1999 the Advocate for the opposite party filed re-open petition in the matter. In this connection, I humbly submit that, since 1.10.1998 I was placed FAC of the post of Head-Clerk-cum-Sheristadar. I have to look after the entire work connected to the Head Clerk seat in addition to my duties as Bench Clerk. Further by the time the reopen petition filed, I was very busy with the preparation of budget bills, visiting the DTO office as it is the middle of March month and other office work, I could not place the re-open petition before the Presiding Officer in advance before pronouncement of the judgment in the matter. The mistake crept is only due to the heavy load of work. The present petition filed is to receive the documents and post the same for arguments." The opposite parties also filed on 23.3.1999 I.A. Nos. 23 and 26/1999 for setting aside the ex parte orders passed respectively in C.D. Nos. 125 and 126/1998 on 17.3.1999. The office notes on the dockets referable to I.A. Nos. 23 and 26/1999 are similar to those in the docket notes on I.A. Nos. 24 and 25/1999, except that in addition it was stated "now this petition is to set aside the ex parte orders passed on 17.3.1999"
Thereafter the District Forum passed the following orders dated 12.7.1999 on I.A. Nos. 23 and 26/1999 : "The records including the order in the O.P. passed are perused. Though the mistake on the part of the office is very much regretted still, this Forum under Consumer Protection Act has no power either to set aside the ex parte reasoned order passed by this Forum as laid down in III (1999) CPJ 1 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT 146=1999 (1) CPR page 86, Supreme Court of India, between : Jyotsana Arvindkumar Shah & Ors. v. Bombay Hospital Trust, or to review its own order as laid down in III (1998) CPJ 19 (NC)= 1998 (2) CPR page 23, National Commission, between : The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Surya Credit Limited & Anr. Hence, the petition is rejected."
Consequently I.A. Nos. 24 and 25/1999 were also rejected. From this it is obvious that the orders of the District Forum were made in the two C.Ds. on 17.3.1999 without being made aware of I.A. Nos. 24 and 25/1999 filed by the Counsel for the opposite parties in the two C.Ds. Had these applications had been brought to the notice of the District Forum, for all we know, the C.Ds. might have been re-opened and an opportunity given to the opposite parties to present their case placing material in support of their case before the District Forum. Under the circumstances we are of the view that in all fairness the orders of the District Forum in these two C.Ds. dated 17.3.1999 have to be set aside to set right the situation arising from the mistake of the office of the District Forum, and give reasonable opportunity to the appellants i.e., opposite parties in the C.Ds.
We may also observe that the District Forum could have itself recalled the orders made in the C.Ds. on 17.3.1999 in view of the peculiar circumstances and facts of the present case i.e., because of office mistake, applications dated 12.3.1999 for re-opening the C.Ds., presented soon after 10.3.1999 and much before the orders in the C.Ds. were pronounced on 17.3.1999, were not brought to the notice of the District Forum. In such cases where mistake of the Court itself is involved, the Court can always exercise its inherent powers to set right the position obtained by recalling the orders. This is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2592. Justice S. Saghir Ahmad speaking for a two Judges'' Bench of the Supreme Court observed as follows : "Inherent power are powers which are resident in all Courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the constitution of the Tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court''s business. Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order."
After referring to a catena of decisions, Sagir Ahmad, J., further observed as follows : "The above principle will apply not only to Courts of Law but also to statutory tribunals which, like the Commission, are conferred power to record evidence by applying certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure including the power to enforce attendance of the witnesses and are also given the power to receive evidence on affidavits. The Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 decides the dispute by following the procedure indicated in Section 22 read with Sections 13(4) and (5) of the Act."
In M. Varalakshmi v. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 1997 (2) ALD 263 (D.B.) = 1997 (2) ALT 95 (D.B.), a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows : "Either the Court or the Tribunal would have the power to correct its own order when the outcome which is sought to be reversed was the product of a mistake committed by the Court. Such power is inherent in the Court or the Tribunal because of the larger principle that no one should suffer prejudice by the acts of a Court. The power of recall was considered in detail in State of Orissa v. Janamohan Das, AIR 1993 Orissa 180, where placing reliance on a decision in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531, the Court distinguished between the power of recall and that of review and found that every Court has the inherent power to recall its order if by any wrong done by it an injury is caused to a suitor."
In the result, the orders of the Guntur District Forum in C.D. Nos. 125/1998 and 126/1998 dated 17.3.1999 are set aside and the C.Ds. are remanded for fresh enquiry and disposal by the District Forum. The District Forum is directed to restore the C.Ds. to its file and post them on 20.12.1999. We direct the parties in the C.Ds. to be present before the District Forum on that date or on any subsequent date fixed by the District Forum on that date for their appearance. Counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents in these two appeals shall inform the parties immediately about this order.
OFFICE is directed to communicate this order to the District Forum immediately alongwith the records of the District Forum in the C.Ds. The appeals i.e., FA Nos. 331/1999 and 332/1999 are accordingly allowed. No costs.
PURSUANT to our orders in FA IA Nos. 678/1999 and 680/1999 in FA Nos. 331/1999 and 332/1999 respectively dated 9.8.1999 the appellants deposited Rs. 23,200/- in each of the F.As. It is open to the appellants to withdraw the said amounts as the appeals have been allowed and the C.Ds. are remanded back to the District Forum. On the appellants filing cheque petitions appropriate orders will be passed on them. Appeals allowed.