SHIV KUMAR Vs. KRISHNA COLD STORAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the complainant against three orders passed by District Forum, Jehanabad in Case No.82/2000. The first order was passed by the President and lady member. From the copy of the order dated 17.7.2001 it appears that order has been signed by the President and it has no signature of lady member. It is not mentioned in this order that lady member has differed with the President. There is another order of the lady member dated 17.7.2001 signed by the lady member. The President has allowed the complaint case but the lady member dismissed the complaint. From the copy of the order sheet filed on behalf of the appellant it appears that order sheet dated 17.7.2001 signed by the President mentions that lady member has since differed with him the record may be sent to the third member when he joins. The third order of the male member is dated 2.4.2003. This order reads as follows: (translation from Hindi) "heard both the parties and perused the record and the order of the Hon'ble President and the lady member and came to the conclusion that finding arrived at by the lady member is correct with whom he agreed".

(2.) The main contention of the learned appellant's Lawyer before us is that the third order by the male member was passed after more than two years of the earlier order and by that time the President and the lady member has also retired and a new President and lady member had joined. The proper course was a fresh hearing by the President and two members besides it is wrongly mentioned in the third order of the male member that both the parties were heard. On the other hand, the complainant had no knowledge that the date of hearing is fixed before the third male member. Before hearing the matter after more than two years, the Forum should have issued notice to both the parties. It was submitted by the appellant that the order dated 2.4.2003 is not in accordance with law and fit to be set aside. It was also submitted by the appellant that it is a fit case, which should be remanded back for a fresh hearing.

(3.) We have perused the order sheet of the District Forum and find that both the parties had appeared before the male member and they were heard and thereafter order dated 2.4.2003 was passed. However, we find substance in this contention of the appellant's Lawyer that order passed by the male member dated 2.4.2003 is perfunctory and no reason has been assigned for agreeing with the order passed by the lady member about two years back. The male member in his order dated 2.4.2003 has not discussed the facts of the case nor any point raised on behalf of both the parties but in a very perfunctory manner in few lines he has mentioned that after perusal of the earlier orders he finds that order of the lady member is correct. This is not a judicial order and it is fit to be set aside. Since there has been different orders by President and the female member a fresh hearing was required by third member who should have written the order in detail. However, we come to the conclusion that the order passed by the male member is not in accordance with law and fit to be set aside.