SUBHASH BANSAL vs WHEELS WORLD

AGGRIVED by the order dated 23.1.1991 passed by the District Forum, Bathinda in Complaint No. 82/1991, the complainant before it has filed an appeal before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the ground that the order of the District Forum is cryptic and the same may be set aside.

THE facts leading to this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. THE complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging therein that he is an Advocate practising on taxation side at Bathinda and that on seeing an advertisement in the reputed news papers, he booked one Montana 4-D Dieso-Sipani Car with the No.1 and deposited a sum of Rs. 7,000/- in the State Bank of Patiala at Bathinda in the accounts of opposite-parties Nos. 1 and 2. THE opposite-party No.1 issued a priority intimation letter No. 00180 dated 14.7.1987 vide Forum No. 3411. It is alleged that the complainant had approached the opposite-party No.1 for the cancellation of his booking of the said car and also requested for the refund of his security amount of Rs. 7,000/- lying deposited with it. It is stated that when his repeated requests for the refund of his money were not responded by the opposite-party No.1, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance praying that the opposite-parties be directed to refund his security amount of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the deposit till payment and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony suffered at their hands. On notice being issued, the opposite-parties resolutely defended the complaint by first raising as many as five preliminary objections. On merits, the allegations made by the complainant were denied. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the District Forum passed the following order:- "Reply of respondent No.1 has been received by post. Nobody has turned up on behalf of respondent No. 2. No relief has been claimed against respondent No. 3. However, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to return a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant within one month from the passing of this order failing which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall also be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the deposited amount. Since respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had illegally withheld the deposited amount and had been taking the benefit of the amount deposited by the complainant. We are further inclined to award a sum of Rs. 1,000/- by way of compensation to the complainant. With these observations, the complaint stands disposed of. Complaint against respondent No. 3 is, however, dismissed with no order as to costs."

The learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly assailed the aforesaid order as wholly unsustainable and worthy of summary quashing. It is pointed out that it is vitually a non-speaking order which is not easy of comprehension. A rightful grievance has been made that no findings have been given on the preliminary objections which were firmly raised in the written statement by the opposite-parties and which went to the route of the jurisdiction. Equally it was assailed on the ground that the same was devoid of any reasoning and more in the shape of a dictum rather than a meaningful adjudication. We find a modicum of merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel. It bears repetition that the pleadings of the parties were reasonably elaborate and in the written statement both on jurisdictional objections and opposition of merits were stoutly pressed. Curiously these seem to have not been remotely adverted to. It is true that the consumer jurisdiction is expeditious and summary in nature but these cannot be carried to the length of slip shod and arbitrarily unreasonable orders on the rights of the parties. In view of the above we find no option but to set aside the order of the District Forum and to remand the matter for fresh trial in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the parties would be allowed to lead evidence and both issues of maintainability and jurisdiction and the merits would be adjudicated upon with full consideration. 6. This appeal is consequently allowed in the terms aforesaid with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.