UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD vs BHARAT FRUIT CO.

THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 10, 1994 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat (District Forum for short) in Complaint No. 185 of 1994 directing the appellant to pay to the respondents Rs. 75,275/- together with 18% interest and cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

THE main grievance of the appellant in this case is that the District Forum did not give it sufficient time to appear before it and file its version as provided under Section 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act for short). It is submitted that under the said provision, the District Forum was required to refer a copy of the complaint to the appellant directing it to give its version of case within thirty days or such extended period not exceeding 45 days as may be granted by the District Forum. In the instant case, however, the District Forum issued notice on August 8, 1994 and made it returnable on August 16,1994 In other words, according to the notice issued by the District Forum, the appellant was required to appear before the District Forum on August 16,1994. THE appellant did not appear before the District Forum on August 16, 1994 and the complaint was posted for hearing on August 30,1994. It is submitted that both the dates viz. August 16 and August 30,1994 were within the period of thirty days. THE complaint was heard on August 30,1994 ex-parte and the District Forum pronounced the judgment on October 10,1994. According to the appellant, the District Forum had acted illegally in not giving it period of thirty days for filing its version and hearing the matter within thirty days from the date notice was issued. On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the appellant had sufficient opportunity to appear before the District Forum and contest the complaint. THE complaint was not heard on August 16,1994, the date on which the notice was made returnable. It was heard only on August 30,1994. THE appellant had ample opportunity to appear before the District Forum on or before August 30, 1994 and file its version or contest the complaint. THE appellant, now cannot make grievance of the ex-parte hearing of the complaint. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. Under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, the District Forum was required to give thirty days'' time to the opponent for giving its/his version. The notice which is issued by the District Forum is clearly in violation of the said provision. It further appears that the complaint was heard on August 30,1994 even before thirty days'' period expired. It, therefore, cannot be said that the appellant had sufficient opportunity to contest the complaint of the respondent. In our opinion, the District Forum could not have heard the complaint ex-parte without giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to contest the complaint as provided in Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the only proper course for us to adopt is to set aside the judgment and order passed by the District Forum and remand the matter to it for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the District Forum are set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity to both the parties to represent their cases and lead evidence. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.