NITI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 1.12.2004 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 1113 of 2002.

(2.) WHEN this appeal was taken up for arguments Mr. Jagdish Kumar Kundu, authorised agent of appellant/complainant Ms. Niti submitted before us that he is aggrieved against the order of the District Forum not only regarding the decision of the case but also due to the fact that on the date of final arguments i.e., 1.12.2004 he was recuperating after heart surgery which he had undergone at Fortis Hospital, Mohali. He also brought to our attention the fact that on the date arguments were held, the District Forum was not assisted by the O.Ps. even as the Counsel for the O.Ps. Ms. Suraksha Sharda was running high fever, she was not in a position to argue the case and on the ground of her illness she prayed for an adjournment but the same was declined by the District Forum. The appellant/complainant also submitted that Mr. Gunjan appeared on behalf of complainant on 1.12.2004 to request for the adjournment due to the fact that his father Mr. Jagdish Kumar Kundu, the person authorised to argue the case on behalf of the complainant was unable to be present due to hospitalisation aforesaid. Hence, there was also a prayer for adjournment on behalf of appellant/complainant by Mr. Gunjan. However, the District Forum refused the request for adjournment by both the parties and reserved the judgment.

(3.) AFTER perusing the record of the case, Zimini orders and the impugned judgment we find merit in the submission of the agent of appellant that the case has not been argued properly by either party due to the reasons aforesaid. A perusal of impugned order also shows the District Forum has itself recorded in para 14 that the agent of appellant/complainant has not been able to demonstrate certain facts during the arguments. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Kundu has placed on record various bills and documents from Fortis Hospital, Mohali which confirmed his hospitalization in the month of March, 2004 and November, 2004. Hence, we accept the prayer of the appellant that for proper adjudication of the case, the case be remanded back to the District Forum as the complaint has been filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which has specifically been enacted for better protection of the interests of consumers. In the interest of justice we accept his prayer and remand the case back to District Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh. The District Forum after perusal of evidence on merit shall make an endeavour to dispose of the case within the period specified in the Act. The parties to appear before the District Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh on 13.6.2005.