SUJATA CHHABRA vs NEW WELDON DRY CLEANERS

THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) took up Complaint Case No. 440 of 2003 filed by the appellant Ms. Sujata Chhabra against New Weldon Drycleaners on 4.5.2004 and vide Zimini order dismissed the complaint case for want of evidence. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant has filed this appeal and after service of notice Mr. Vikas Bector, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent. Record of the complaint case was also summoned and received.

A perusal of the Zimini order would show that the District Forum called out the case several times on 4.5.2004 but neither the complainant nor anybody else on her behalf turned up. In the next line, it was mentioned that one Shri Harminder Singh, Advocate appeared as proxy and requested for adjournment. The said request was turned down on the ground that the evidence was not being adduced since long despite several opportunities having been offered to the complainant. The last line, vide which the case was dismissed read as under: ".....So in these circumstances we find no option but to dismiss the case for want of evidence. The file be consigned." This Zimini order gives an impression that the case has been dismissed for want of evidence and it further appears that the case was not dismissed for default of the appearance of the appellant/complainant.

Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as C.P. Act) deals with the procedure prescribed for hearing of the complaint case and Sub-section (2)(c) lays down "where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing before the District Forum, the District Forum may either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits".

A careful perusal of Section 13 of the C.P. Act will go to show that there is no provision for dismissing the case for want of evidence though in case the District Forum decided to dismiss the case on merit then it was incumbent on the District Forum to take on record evidence, if any, led by the O.P./respondent and thereafter vide separate reasoned order, the complaint case was to be considered and dismissed if in the opinion of the District Forum, the material placed on record by the complainant was not sufficient to allow relief claimed by the complainant. It is thus evident that the impugned Zimini order has been passed contrary to the provisions contained in Section 13(2)(c) of the C.P. Act and the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. However, it may be mentioned that the District Forum also did not take into consideration that after allowing three adjournments, the District Forum fixed the case for evidence of the complainant for 4.5.2004 and only after three opportunities allowed, which were for reasons accepted as sufficient by the District Forum, the complainant was denied opportunity of leading evidence though the C.P. Act has been enacted specially to protect the interest of the consumer.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent also could not show to us any material by which the impugned Zimini order could not be sustained in law. Since the order dated 4.5.2004, which has been passed as a Zimini order, does not contain a discussion on merit, the same has to be treated as a dismissal without consideration of the merit of the case. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned Zimini order dated 4.5.2004 is set aside. The Complaint Case No. 440 of 2003 is remanded to the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh for deciding the same in accordance with law preferably within one month from the date of receipt of the record of complaint case. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh on 3.11.2004. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal allowed.