MAHENDRA SINGH SINGHVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) is directed against the order dated 13.8.1990 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No.40/89. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. As we have come to the conclusion that this order has to be set aside and the case has to be remanded to the District Forum, Jaipur for a fresh decision, it is not necessary to give a detailed resume of the facts leading to this appeal. Suffice it to state that the complainant-appellant filed a complaint under Sec.12of the Act against the opposite parties (Union of India, Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Alfa Automobiles, Jaipur) praying that the opposite parties may be directed (l) to deliver the vehicle to the complainant before 31.3.1989; (2) that the opposite parties may be directed to make payment of interest @ 18% p. a. on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of the vehicle; (3) that the opposite parties if fail to deliver the vehicle to the complainant before 31.3.1989 then the opposite parties may be directed to make payment of loss suffered by the complainant for making excess payment of income tax as a result of non-delivery of vehicle to the complainant before 31.3.1989. They may further be directed to driver the vehicle at the rate of Rs.89,204/- without realising increased excise duty from the complainant; and (4) that suitable compensation may be awarded.

(2.) On behalf of opposite parties No.2 and 3, an application was submitted on 29.4.1989 stating that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the complaint against them. A reply was submitted on behalf of the complainant to this application. The complaint was dismissed in default on 25.11.1989. It was restored by order dated 23.3.1990. By order dated 20.7.1990 exparte proceedings were taken against the opposite parties. No reply contesting the compliant was filed on behalf of the opposite parties. The President of the District Forum heard the arguments on 8.8.1990 and dismissed the complaint. The order under appeal is signed by the President and one member. Aggrieved against the dismissal, the complainant-appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) We heard learned Counsel for the appellant on 18.9.1991. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted written arguments after delivering a copy thereof to the learned Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the arguments in the complaint were heard by the President, Shri J. P. Baasal, and the other member (Shri Beni Prasad) was hearing other cases. At the relevant time there were two members of the District Forum viz. . President and one member. After hearing the arguments on 8.8.1990 the matter was posted for orders. on 13.8.1990. The order was signed by the President and one member. In this connection it is pertinent to reproduce para 3 (1) of the memo of appeal which is as under;- " YEH KI MAMLEY KI SUNWAI UPBHOGTA SANRAKSHAN ADHINIYAM KA HAL BANAYA GAYA KORUM KE ANUSAR NAHI KI GAYI HAI NA JILA MUNCH JAIPUR MAI AISA KIYA GAYA HAI. IS PRAKRAN KI SUNWAI MANNIYA SHRI J. P. BANSAL DWARA KI GAYI AUR DUSRA SADASYA SHRI BANI PARSAD NE IS VISAHY MAI BEHES NAHI SUNI TATHA BEHES KE DAURAN WO HAMESHA KI TAREH UNHE DIYA GAYE MUKADDME KE VISHAY MAI KARYA KARTA RAHA JILA MUNCH JAIPUR MAI DONO SADASYA ALAG ALAG KARYA VIBHAKT KAR BEHES SUNTA HAI JO KI UPBHOGTA SANRAKSHAN ADHINIYAM KI BHAWANA KE VIPRIT HAI AUR ISI ADHAR PAR YEH APEEL SWEEKAR KI JAKAR DIYA GAYA FAISLA NIRAST KIYE JANE YOYGE HAI IS VISHYA MAI WAKIL APILARTHI JO KI MAHHANTAM NYAYALAYA MAI BHI EK WAKIL HAI KA SHAPAT PATRA PRUSTUT KIYA JA RAHA HAI. "