BIPPINJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against order dated 16.8.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II] in Complaint Case No.1119 of 2001. The complainant/appellant seeks an opportunity to lead evidence before the District Forum-II which has dismissed the complaint for want of evidence of the complainant. Mr. D. S. Uppal, Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that before the District Forum-II, the complainant was prosecuting the case in person and he was appearing throughout before the District Forum-II but unfortunately on 18.6.2002, it was fixed for evidence of the complainant and the complainant had to go out of station and could not inform the District Forum-II and as such the District Forum-II took up the case in the absence of the complainant and decide it under Rule 4 (8) of Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 [for short hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1987] and dismissed the complaint for want of evidence.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the contesting O. P. Nos.2 to 4, Mr. G. S. Arshi, Advocate contended that there is no sufficient ground shown by the appellant by which he was prevented from appearing before the District Forum-II on 18.6.2002. It is true that Rule 4 (8) of Rules, 1987 do provide for the complainant as well as the O. P. or the authorised agent to appear on the date of hearing and on subsequent adjourned dates of hearing but it is to be considered that the complainant/appellant in this case had to leave the station for going outside and he could not send intimation to the District Forum-II and make a request of adjournment of the complaint case and as such he suffered the impugned order. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act] is a benevolent piece of legislation enacted for a better protection of the consumers. For the fault which has been committed by the appellant in failing to inform the District Forum-II about his inability to appear before it on 18.6.2002, the appellant can be saddled with costs and in our considered opinion, a reasonable opportunity of leading evidence before the District Forum-II be allowed to the appellant/complainant.

(3.) Resultantly this appeal is allowed subject to payment of Rs.200/- as costs payable to the contesting respondent Nos.2 to 4 represented by Mr. G. S. Arshi, Advocate and the impugned order passed by the District Forum-II is set aside. The complaint case is remanded to the District Forum-II for decision afresh on merit. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-II. U. T. , Chandigarh on 23.9.2001. The District Forum-II shall allow an opportunity to the appellant to lead his evidence. It is made clear that the appellant shall file his evidence within the time allowed by the District Forum-II positively and shall not seek any adjournment for the purpose of filing his evidence. Likewise the respondent Nos.2 to 4 who are contesting the case shall file their evidence within the time allowed by the District Forum-II. The District Forum-II shall decide the complaint case positively within one month from 23.9.2002. The costs awarded vide this order shall be paid on 23.9.2002 by the complainant to the learned Counsel for O. P. Nos.2 to 4.