RAM SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant questions the legality and correctness of the order dated 3-9-1990 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No.579/89. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. In view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at it is not necessary to recount the facts leading to this appeal.

(2.) Suffice it to state that the complainant lodged a complaint against the opposite parties before the District Forum, Jaipur on 30-9-1989 praying that the opposite parties may be directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.6,990.70 p on account of the damage to bus HRA 3062 together with interest @ 12% p. a. The complainant submitted photostat copies of the various documents with the complaint. The opposite parties (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) (insurers) resisted the complaint on various grounds. Certain preliminary objections were also raised with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. The complainant submitted his affidavit in support of the complaint. The President of the District Forum, Jaipur heard the arguments ex-parte on August 30, 1990 and fixed the complaint for orders. No date was mentioned on August 30, 1990 for pronouncement of the order. However, on September 3, 1990 the District Forum consisting of the President and one member dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Hence this appeal by the complainant.

(3.) We heard Mr. Ram Singh appellant in person and Mr. Sushil Agarwal, Advocate for the respondents and considered the record keeping in view the contentions raised by the appellant and Mr. Agarwal learned counsel for the respondents. The order appealed against was carefully examined. The appeal can be disposed of as stated above on a very short point. A specific ground was taken by the appellant in the memo of appeal that during the arguments the other two members of the Forum were not present and therefore, the order could not have been legally and validly passed by the President and one Member of the District Forum. It is clearly borne out from the proceedings of the complaint dated August 30, 1990 that exparte arguments were heard by the President alone. There is nothing in the order sheet of this date to show that the other member was present at the time of the arguments or that he participated in the deliberations when the arguments were heard. The arguments in the complaint were heard by the President of the District Forum alone and the Member who did not hear the arguments became party in passing the impugned order. As stated above this ground has specifically been taken in the memo of appeal. The order-sheet dated August 30, 1990 is signed by the President alone. Neither the presence of the other member is recorded in the order-sheet nor his signatures are in it. There is nothing in the order-sheet to indicate that the member who has pronounced the order dated September 3, 1990 was present when the arguments were heard. It is well settled that a person who has not heard the arguments should not decide the cause affecting the rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial authorities are required to follow this basic principle. At the risk of repetition it may be stated that the arguments were heard by the President alone and the order was passed by the President and one Member. Thus there has been flagrant disregard of the basic principle relating to the hearing and deciding the cases by the quasi-judicial authorities. The order under appeal is thus bad and stands vitiated for the above reason. This reason alone is sufficient to set aside the order. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into the merits of this appeal. We wish to draw attention of the District Forum to the order of the National Commission passed in M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. , New Delhi V/s. V. K. Jain, 1991 1 CPJ 50 (NC)] wherein amongst others, Sec.14 (2) of the Act was considered. The District Forum shall decide the complaint and pass the orders under Sec.14 (1) of the Act keeping in view the provisions of Sec.14 (2) of the Act. It was held in the above case that under the mandatory provisions contained in Sec.14 (2) of the Act as it now stands, every order passed by the District Forum has to be signed by all the three members (President and two Members) all of whom together constitute the District Forum.