BALASAHEB NIVRUTTI MEMANE Vs. SUKHADEV MAHADEO KUCHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocate Santosh Patil on behalf of the Appellant/original Opponent, namely Mr. Balasaheb Nivrutti Memane (hereinafter referred to as 'the Opponent' for the sake of brevity) and Advocate Anant Vadgaonkar on behalf of the Respondent/ original Complainant, namely Mr. Sukhdev Mahadeo Kuchekar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant' for the sake of brevity).

(2.) THE Appellant/original Opponent has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.7.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum' for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No. 583 of 2010, Mr. Sukhdev Mahadeo Kuchekar v. Mr. Balasaheb Nivrutti Memane. Said consumer complaint which was filed by the Complainant was allowed ex parte and the Opponent was directed to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs. 6,00,000 by way of compensation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed by the Opponent.

(3.) WE are finding that no doubt the Opponent had remained absent before the District Forum and he invited passing of an ex parte order against him but the fact remains that in this case question is as to whether a consumer complaint as filed by the Complainant was tenable or not. Since the Opponent remained absent he did not file written version and did not raise the issue as to whether the complaint would be maintainable or entertainable by the Consumer Forum for the simple reason that the Complainant had given his vehicle to the Opponent on rental basis and he was to get charges @ Rs. 12 per km. up to 3000 km. per month. The Opponent had also kept with the Complainant an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 as deposit and from that deposit the Complainant was supposed to pay driver's salary @ Rs. 4,000 per month and to meet maintenance expenses. Since the amount was not paid by the Opponent as per the agreement a complaint came to be filed. What is further shocking is the fact that though the complaint was taken cognizance of and was decided ex parte, while delivering the judgment it was preponed at the request of the Complainant. This is very much objectionable. Daily Board of the District Forum clearly shows that said complaint was listed for ex parte hearing on 8.7.2011 on which date the complaint was adjourned to 29.8.2011.On8.7.2011both parties were absent. Though the complaint was adjourned to 29.8.2011, on 12.7.2011 the Complainant suo motu appeared before the District Forum and filed an application with a prayer that though the complaint was posted for delivery of judgment on 29.8.2011, it may be taken on the Board and may be immediately disposed of by delivery of judgment. This application of the Complainant was allowed on 12.7.2011 and the District Forum allowed the complaint on 18.7.2011 though originally this case was adjourned for delivery of judgment on 29.8.2011. These facts are self -eloquent to show as to how the Complainant had exercised some sort of pressure on the District Forum to procure judgment in his favour. It is for this reason we are inclined to allow this appeal quashing and setting aside the order passed by the District Forum directing the Opponent to pay compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 to the Complainant. The Opponent is required to be allowed to get second inning of hearing for the simple reason that the Complainant had exercised undue pressure on the District Forum in procuring the judgment in his favour by preponing the date of judgment and the District Forum appears to have danced to the tune of the Complainant. In these circumstances we pass the following order: