BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. SURAJ MUKHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case was taken up. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant is present. None is present for the respondent. It is an appeal of the year 1994 and looking to the nature of the case it was deemed appropriate to decide it on merit. Consequently the impugned judgment and order as well as grounds of appeal and other materials available on record were perused.

(2.) THE judgment in question has been assailed on the ground that it was not open for the District Forum to deliver the judgment constituted, by only two members including the President whereas it should have been delivered by the three i.e. two members and the President. Over and above, the complaint allegations do not make out a 'consumer dispute' and the reliefs could have been made available under the provisions of the Sahukaar Act. Even the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum was subject matter of serious criticism.

(3.) IN the instant case, it is admitted to the parties that the appellant is a Sahukara licensee rendering the banking services to his customer. In view thereof the complainant opened an account and obtained a pass book after depositing a sum of Rs. 7,500 on 14.3.1993. When the demand was made, the payment was avoided on one pretext or the other. Constrained by these situations the complainant had no option except to file the present complaint. Section 14 does not debar the two members to dispose of a complaint when the third member is not available. Moreover, Section 3 of the Act protects the filing of the complaint in case if the complainant is able to make out a case that it is a case of deficiency in service. The deposited money not being returned along with interest as and when demanded while rendering a banking service is a deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act.