SUNIL GOPINATH RAUT vs SHRIRAM P. PINGALE

PERUSED the application, which is moved by original O.P. in the above complaint.

VIDE this application, the applicants, who are original O.Ps. in the above complaint have sought transfer of Case No. 44/2002 from the file of District Forum, Beed to some other Forum. We have perused the application, which is as would be pointed out made mere on apprehension. In para 4 of the application, it is stated that some relation of the O.P. has friendly relation with the President of the District Forum and that being so, O.P. apprehends that he would not get a justice.

It is necessary to be borne in mind that transfer of a case from one Forum to another is a petty serious matter, because it would cast indirectly doubt on the integrity or competence of the Presiding Officer of the Forum from whom the matter is sought to be transferred.

THEREFORE, this should not be done without proper and sufficient cause. Mere presumption or possible apprehension could not and should not be the basis of transferring the case from one Forum to another Forum. That being so, the reason assigned for so called apprehension by the applicant, to say the least is totally unfounded.

AT the same time, we wish to reiterate and emphasize the established convention and settled position on the basis of judicial pronouncements; including that of the Apex Court in this regard for the benefit of consumer litigants, as also the Presiding Officers of the Fora. It is not in a good taste to move the application merely on apprehension, as the same would result in giving very bad signal to the consumer litigants undermining the status of the Presiding Officers, as also their dignity. It needs to be emphasized that the Forums like the Consumer Forum, which even the statute say enjoy the quasi-judicial status would function with mutual trust and confidence and if applications of such types are made and entertained in a casual manner, it would tarnish the image of the Forum in the eyes of general public and the consumers, which will not be in a good taste in the long run. Section 17(A) which is introduced as and by way of amendment in 2002 in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers power upon the State Commission to "state Commission may, at any stage of the proceedings, transfer any complaint pending before the District Forum to another District forum within the State, if the interest of justice so requires". (Underline supplied).

PLAIN reading of the said section makes it clear that on an application being made by the complainant, the State Commission at any stage of the proceedings may transfer any complaint pending before the District Forum to another District Forum within the State, if so require in the interest of justice.

IT would thus be noticed that the said provisions are analogous to the provisions as contained in Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure Judge. Independence is the most essential and vital attribute of the judicial function. It is imperative that a Judge discharges his solemn function with clean hands and a clear conscience. It calls for judicial discipline governing the discharge of judicial function impartially. Judge should not, while discharging his judicial function, do or say anything or conduct in manner which may give rise to an impression that he is acting with a predisposed mind. We would remind what the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed so in the case A.P.S.R.T. Corpn. v. Satyanarayan Transports, reported in AIR 1965 S.C. p. 1303, in the context. The broad principal which is universally accepted is that a person trying a cause even in quasi-judicial proceedings must not only act fairly, but must be able to act above suspicion of unfairness. It is well recognised and an accepted principle that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done. People accept the decision of a Judge not because his decision is always correct but because it is rendered by a person known for his wisdom, integrity, character and impartiality. It is only on account of these qualities of a Judge, people have faith in the judiciary. This is what the Supreme Court has observed in the case of S.P. Gupta and Others v. Union of India and Others, reported in AIR 1982 S.C. p. 149.

It is, therefore, essential to the Presiding Officers of Fora, at the same time to ensure to instil confidence in the minds of the people and command respect. They possess statutory authority and judicial power of adjudication and administer justice and such function independently, impartially and justly inspiring confidence of the public.

COMING to the case in hand, we are of the view that application as made does not fall within the parameters of the Section 17-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is needless to add that the Presiding Officers of the said Forum while disposing of the dispute shall do so keeping with the dignity of its status, as also the onerous responsibility cast upon it to serve the consumer in accordance with the law and the Rules, totally uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances.

AT this stage, respondent''s Advocate requests that the complaint is pending for last 2 years and District Forum should be directed to dispose of the same expeditiously. We do not propose to give any specific directions in that behalf, but District Forum shall ensure that it being a consumer dispute and which statute itself mandates disposal within 90 days, it will strive to do so. ORDER 1. Application stands rejected. 2. No order as to costs. 3. We also direct the Registrar to circulate copies of the judgment to all the District Forums in the State. 4. Copies of the order herein to be furnished to the parties.

Application dismissed.