VISHAL GOODS TRANSPORT COMPANY vs INTER UNIVERSITY PRESS (P) LIMITED

THIS appeal been filed by the comsplainant 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.F.) against Vishal Goods Transport Co. Opposite Party (O.P.)-appellant. Later an application for setting aside that order was filed by the Opposite Party. The learned District Forum held, that mere 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 O.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 set aside exparte order. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued mat the Judicial/ Tribunals have got the inherent powers to set aside the ex-parte 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 arguments and find force therein. Sub-rule (8) of the Rule 4 of 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 dare of hearing before the District Forum it may in its discretion 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 complaints if it was dismissed in default, or for setting aside ex-parte order, if ex-parte proceedings had been taken against the Opposite Party. The Fora under the Act have the trappings of. Civil Court and exercise quasi judicial powers. Therefore, if they have got the power to dismiss the cases in default of proceed ex-parte against the OPs., they have inherent powers to recall these orders, if sufficient cause is known for non-appearance by the complainants/OPs 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 may 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 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 thereunder 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 Nov., 1994. Appeal allowed.