PERURI MINERAL AND REFRACTORIES vs Andhra Pradesh STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

THIS is an appeal preferred by the complainants against the order of the West Godavari District Forum dismissing their complaint at the S.R. stage i.e., CD. SR. No. 94/1998 by its order dated 21.3.1998. The grievance of the complainants was that their complaint could not have been disposed of at the S.R. stage and that it ought to have been numbered, notice ought to have been issued to the opposite parties and then, after opportunity for leading evidence to both sides, it should have been disposed of.

NO doubt the District Forum ought to have heard the complainants after giving a regular number and taking up the matter for admission. The complaint could have been rejected at the S.R. stage itself if, on the facts stated in the complaint, the District Forum lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the matter. But if the issues raised fall within the purview of the District Forum, the complaint ought to be given a regular number before being posted for admission or disposal; that is, if all the other formalities for numbering the complaint are satisfied. If the complaint raises triable issues which require evidence to be adduced, then notice has to go to the opposite party/parties and the matter has to be disposed of in accordance with law, observing the principles of natural justice and fair play That does not mean that a complaint cannot be dismissed without notice to the opposite parties if, on the facts alleged in the complaint, no case is made out for granting any relief that can be done, however, after opportunity to and hearing the complainant. In the present case the complaint was dismissed at the S.R. stage. The District Forum did not hold that it lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, but found that on the allegations made in the complaint no case was made out for granting of any relief to the complainants. The complainants M/s. Peruri Mineral and Refractories, were heard through their Counsel, Mr. S. Sarveswara Rao, as per what is stated in the order dated 21.3.1998 of the District Forum. That is not disputed by the Counsel for the appellants/complainants before us. Thus principles of natural justice were not violated. The order of the District Forum is not perfunctory or without giving reasons. We find it a speaking order. Under the circumstances the order cannot be faulted for violating principles of natural justice and fair play. It would have been better and proper had it been numbered, but that is only a technical defect. Going through the order we do not find any basis for interfering with it on merits. The grievance of the complainants was that subsidy was denied to it because of wrong report given by the 1st opposite party i.e., 1st respondent before us. The District Forum observed that the report was given by the 1st opposite party in the year 1995 itself and that the alleged consequential rejection of subsidy by the 3rd opposite party/ 3rd respondent was on 22.9.1995. The complaint was presented on 19.2.1998. It was thus barred by time under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum further observed that the complainant did not come forward with any application for condoning the delay explaining how sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay. In the result we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the District Forum. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The District Forum shall number the C.D. and enter it in the register of 1998 C.Ds. Appeal dismissed.