RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. GOPAL KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Sec.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein), the opposite party-appellant questions the legality and correctness of the order dated 15-2-1991 passed by the District Forum, Kota (consisting of two members) in Complaint Case No.766/1991. It is not necessary to give a detailed resume of the facts leading to this appeal in view of the conclusion that this appeal succeeds on a short point.

(2.) The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum praying that allotment of 40' X 60' house in old locality may be allotted "as 15 years have passed in waiting to get a house from the Rajasthan Housing Board, Kota". The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing a reply dated 15-2-1991 stating that big house measuring 40' x 60' is not available and whenever house of such area will be constructed, then on the basis of the priority house will be allotted to the complainant-respondent. The two members of the District Forum heard the arguments on 15-2-1991 and passed the impugned order. The opposite party was directed to allot a house measuring 40' x 60' or a house of bigger size to the complainant on the basis of priority within one month form the date of the order and also to put the complainant-respondent in possession. In case house is not made available to the complainant-respondent in terms of the order, the opposite party would be liable to pay compensation @ Rs.100/- per day. The opposite party-appellant has filed the appeal on 18-3-1991. Presumption of service was raised against the respondent on 19-8-1991. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on 16-1-1992, as nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) The President of the District Forum was not a party to the Bench which passed the order inasmuch as the order has been passed by the two members of the District Forum. In H. K. Purohit V/s. Registrar, University of Jodhpur, (Revision Petition Nos.61 and 62/91 decided on October 21, 1991) the orders were passed by the two members of the State Commission. The National Commission observed that the orders passed in the two cases by the State Commission cannot be sustained in law even under the amended provision of Sec.14 (2) of the Act inasmuch as the President of the State Commission was not one amongst the two members who heard the appeals.