SATYENDRA SINGH JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved against the order dated 4.3.1992 passed by the District Forum, Alwar in Complaint Case No.42/91, the complainant has filed this appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act herein ). The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for grant of reliefs mentioned in para 13 (1) to (6) of the complaint.

(2.) The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing a version of the case dated 1.4.1991. The complaint was tried by the District Forum. Arguments in the complaint were heard on 3.3.1992 by the President and Shri Shiv Narain Sharma, Member. The complaint was posted for orders on 4.3.1992. The order under appeal was passed on 4.3.1992 by the President and two Members, Shri Shiv Narain Sharma and Smt. Shalini Sharma. The President of the District Forum at the relevant time was Shri Ganpat Singh Bhandari. As thecomplaint was dismissed this appeal has been filed.

(3.) We heard Shri Khilli Mai Jain, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Om Shankar Khandelwal, Advocate for Mr. Praveen Balwada, Advocate, for the respondents and carefully considered the record of the District Forum. Mr. Khilli Mai Jain, Advocate appearing for the appellant argued that the order is bad in law for the reason that Smt. Shalini Sharma who was the Member of the Bench which passed the order did not hear the arguments and still became party to the order. This objection was specifically taken in the memo of appeal in ground No.6 (b ). It was held in I (1992) CPJ 191 that it is well settled that a person who has not heard the arguments should not decide the cause effecting the rights of the parties. It was observed as follows :-