MUNICIPALITY CHITTORGARH Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.1.92 passed by the District Forum, Chittorgarh in complaint Case No.31/91 in which it is incorporated that the complainant is agreeable that he will deposit the arrears of lease money and other dues in respect of the shop within two months from the date of the order. It is further mentioned in the order under appeal that the opposite party is allowed three years time keeping in view the budget and convenience for construction of a park for fixing railing and boundary wall on all the four sides of the proposed park. The complaint was decided accordingly. Against this order the opposite party appellant has lodged the appeal.

(2.) In para 7 of the complaint, five reliefs were sought against the opposite party-appellant. The complaint was filed on 21.2.90. The opposite party filed the version of the case on 2.10.91 traversing the allegations made in the complaint. It was, inter alia pleaded that the complainant is a defaulter and he has not deposited urban tax and therefore he is not entitled to maintain the complaint. A plea was also taken that the complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the lease and he has committed breach thereof. An objection was taken that the complainant is not a consumer for the reasons mentioned in para 4 of the version of the case. The District Forum heard the arguments in part on 29.11.91. Thereafter it is written that it is desired that site may be inspected.17.12.91 was fixed for seeing the site. The order sheet dated 29.11.91 is signed by two Members. On 17.12.91 it was incorporated that the President of the District Forum is on leave and so it may be adjourned to 30.1.92. On 31.1.92 the order under appeal was passed. It is signed by the President and the two Members.

(3.) We have gone through the order under appeal and we have no hesitation to say that the District Forum has passed the impugned order perfunctorily and did not apply its mind to the points in controversy between the parties. On the basis of the statement made by the complainant that he is prepared to deposit the arrears of lease money and other dues in respect of the shop within two months was not sufficient for the District Forum to give the directions contained in the order against the opposite party. The complaint was with respect to the deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party. It should have been tried in accordance with the procedure laid down under Sec.13 (2) of the Act and but this has been observed in breach. A specific plea was taken that the complainant is not a consumer for the reasons mentioned in para 4 of the version of the case. The District Forum did not examine the question of the maintainability of the complaint in the light of the pronouncements of the State Commission as well as of National Commission. We do not approve of disposing of the complaints in a slipshod manner without application of mind and without observing the procedure laid down under Sec.13 (2) of the Act. There is one more lacuna in the case and that is that the arguments in part were heard by the two Members and the complaint was adjourned for site inspection. Site inspection could not be done as the President of the District Forum was on leave on 17.12.91. The order sheet dated 17.12.91 is also signed by the two Members and thereafter the impugned order was passed on 31.1.92 against the appellants by the President as well as the two Members. The provisions contained in Sec.14 (2) and (2a) of the Act were not taken note of by the District Forum. Even if the arguments were heard in part on 29.11.91 by the two Members and if certain directions were to be issued affecting the rights of the opposite party, then the President of the District Forum could not become party to this order as the Redressal Forums established under the Act discharge quasi-judicial functions. It has been consistently held that a member or the President of the District Forum who has not been a party to a bench which heard the arguments, he or she should not become a party to the order when it is passed by the bench consisting of the member or member's of the District Forum. It needs to be emphasised that the President of the District Forum is a must for the disposal of a complaint in view of the provisions contained in Sec.14 (2) of the Act.