R M LAKHANI Vs. PRAKASH TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the original complainant No.1. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Rajkot District Forum in case No.28/90, has filed this appeal.

(2.) The appellant is not present. The summons, it appears have not been issued to M/s. Prakash Travels, the respondent No.1. Though the appellant is not present, we are inclined to decide the appeal on merits since, to our opinion, the judgment and order passed by the District Forum cannot be maintained. The District Forum in Para 13 has observed that "the respondent No.1 Prakash Travels issued a cheque for the refund to the complainant on 15.6.88. This cheque was not honoured by the bank and, therefore, the complainant appears to have filed the complaint. "

(3.) Now there is no dispute that the ticket was purchased from the Opposite Party No.1 - Prakash Travels. The Indian Airlines appears to have made the refund to M/s. Prakash Travels and M/s. Prakash Travels in turn sent a cheque to the complainant. In that view of the matter the presence of M/s. Prakash Travels is absolutely necessary because the Indian Airlines have already made the payment to M/s. Prakash Travels and in turn M/s. Prakash Travels have also issued a cheque which has not been honoured. M/s. Prakash Travels is necessarily a party and if the Summons could not be served, the District Forum ought to have served by substituted service. It also appears that the original complaint is filed by complainant No.2. Therefore the Forum ought to have given a chance to the complainant No.2 to sign the complaint otherwise the name of the complainant No.2 ought to have been deleted.