BHAGWAN DAS Vs. GANGANAGAR SAHKARI UPBHOKTA BHANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint filed by the appellant had been dismissed by the D.F. on 27.8.2000 for his absence. The appellant moved an application for restoration of such complaint but such application was also dismissed by the Forum on the ground that the complaint had been dismissed by it in accordance with mandate contained in Rule 4(9) of the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987 and also for absence of the Counsel of the appellant. Hence this appeal.

(2.) IN so far as the dismissal of the application of the appellant for absence of the Counsel is concerned the D.F. cannot be said to have exercised its discretion vested in it by Rule 4(9) of the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987 illegally or with material irregularity. But since the complaint was not dismissed on merits, the D.F. should have given an opportunity to the appellant to explain the cause of his absence on 27.9.2000.

(3.) IN order to settle the dispute between the parties on merits the impugned order is set aside and the D.F. is directed to hear both the parties on merits of the ground of absence of the appellant on 27.9.2000 and then pass appropriate orders. The D.F. may consider the case from the angle as to whether dismissal of a complaint not on merits requires the restoration of the complaint or not.