SATYENDRA SINGH JAIN vs Union of India

AGGRIEVED against the order dated 4.3.1992 passed by the District Forum, Alwar in Complaint Case No. 42/91, the complainant has filed this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the Act herein). The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for grant of reliefs mentioned in para 13(1) to (6) of the complaint.

THE opposite parties contested the complaint by filing a version of the case dated 1.4.1991. THE complaint was tried by the District Forum. Arguments in the complaint were heard on 3.3.1992 by the President and Shri Shiv Narain Sharma, Member. THE complaint was posted for orders on 4.3.1992. THE order under appeal was passed on 4.3.1992 by the President and two Members, Shri Shiv Narain Sharma and Smt. Shalini Sharma. THE President of the District Forum at the relevant time was Shri Ganpat Singh Bhandari. As thecomplaint was dismissed this appeal has been filed. We heard Shri Khilli Mai Jain, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Om Shankar Khandelwal, Advocate for Mr. Praveen Balwada, Advocate, for the respondents and carefully considered the record of the District Forum. Mr. Khilli Mai Jain, Advocate appearing for the appellant argued that the order is bad in law for the reason that Smt. Shalini Sharma who was the Member of the Bench which passed the order did not hear the arguments and still became party to the order. This objection was specifically taken in the memo of appeal in ground No. 6(b). It was held in I (1992) CPJ 191 that it is well settled that a person who has not heard the arguments should not decide the cause effecting the rights of the parties. It was observed as follows :- "Quasi-judicial authorities are required to follow this basic principle. At the risk of repetition it may be stated that the arguments were heard by the President alone and the order was passed by the President and one Member. Thus there has been flagrant disregard of the basic principle relating to the hearing and deciding the case by the quasi-judicial authorities. The order under appeal is thus bad and stands vitiated for the above reason".

The above mentioned decision was followed by the State Commission in various cases. Reference may be made to II (1993) CPJ 724 it was observed therein as follows : - "It is well settled by various decisions of the State Commission that a Member of the District Forum who is not a party of the Bench which heard the arguments should not be a party to the judgment for that Member had no occasion to hear the arguments of the parties. A Redressal Forum under the Act discharges quasi-judicial functions and as such if the arguments have been heard the order should be pronounced by those who heard the arguments. In other words if the Member or President who had not heard the arguments, he should not be a party to the order".

AS Smt. Shalini Sharma did not hear the arguments and became a Member of Bench which passed the order, the order dated 4.3.1992 stands vitiated and it has to be set aside. The case is sent back to the District Forum, Alwar with a direction to take the complaint on its file and decide it afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions of Sec. 14(2) and (2A) of the Act after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The appeal is allowed and the case is remanded. No costs. Appeal allowed.