VISHAL GOODS TRANSPORT CO. vs INTER UNIVERSITY PRESS (P) LTD.

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum dated 5th August, 1994.

BRIEFLY, the facts are that an ex-parte order was passed by District Forum No. 1 (D.P) against M/s. Vishal Goods Transport Co. opposite party (C.P.) appellant. Later, an application for setting aside that order was filed by the O.P. The learned District Forum held, that there was no provision in the Consumer Protection Rules empowering it to set aside the ex-parte order and consequently, the application for setting aside ex-parte order was not maintainable. The C.P. has come up in appeal against the said order to the commission. The short question that arises for determination is, whether the FORA under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') have got the power to not aside ex-parte orders. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Judicial Tribunals have got the inherent powers to set aside the exparte orders. In support of his contention he placed reliance in Grindlays Bank v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1981 SC 606.

We have duly considered the argument and find force therein. Sub-rule (8) of the Rule 4 the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules deals with the situation, if either of the parties does not appear before the Forum on the date of hearing it provides that if the complainant or his authorised agent fails to appear on the date of hearing before the District Forum it may in its disc retain either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits and where the opposite party or its authorised agent fails to appear on the date of hearing the District Forum may decide the complaint ex-parte. There is, however, no provision in the Rules for restoration of the complaint if it was dismissed in default, or for setting aside exparte order, if ex-parte proceedings had been taken against the opposite party. The FORA under the Act have the trappings of a Civil Court and exercise quasi-judicial powers. Therefore, if they have got the power to dismiss the cases in default or proceed against ex-parte against the opp. parties, they have inherent powers to recall these orders, if sufficient cause is shown for nonappearance by the complainants/opp. parties in order to do justice between the parties. We are fortified in the above observations by the Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank''s case (supra). The following observations be read with advantage: "Where a party is prevented from appearing at the hearing due to a sufficient cause, and is faced with an ex-parte award, it is as if the party is visited with an award without a notice of the proceedings. An award without notice to a party is nothing but a nullity. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex-parte award and to direct the matter to be heard afresh. It is true that there is no express provision in the Act or the Rules framed there under giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to do so. But it is a well-known rule of statutory construction that a Tribunal or body should be considered to be endowed with such ancillary or incidental powers as are necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing justice between the parties."

FOR the aforesaid reasons we accept the appeal, set aside the order of the District FORum and remand the case to the FORum for deciding the application for setting aside ex-parte order on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the District FORum on 17th November 1994. Appeal allowed.