VASUNDHARA Vs. RAM SINGH KACHHAVAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by M/s. Vasundhara through its partner against the order of the District Forum, Nagaur dated 29.2.92 directing the appellant to pay an amount of the draft i. e. Rs.7,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% to the complainant and Rs.100/- as costs.

(2.) The office has reported that the appeal is bared by limitation by 43 days. It may be mentioned that the District Forum, Nagaur had pronounced its order on 29.2.92. Copy of the order of the District Forum was sent by the District Forum to the complainant by post and it was received by the appellant on 14.4.92. This appeal was filed on 13.5.92 and is within limitation from the date of the knowledge of the order.

(3.) On merits it may be stated that the complaint was originally filed by the complainant-respondent before the District Forum, Ajmer on 8.3.89. Before the District Forum, Ajmer appearance has been put by the appellant and reply to the complaint had also been filed. It appears that thereafter District Forum, Nagaur was established and it had jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint. Proceedings dated 6.7.91 go to show that on that date Complaint Case No.1/91 was received by the District Forum, Nagaur from District Forum, Ajmer by transfer. Before transferring the complaint to District Forum, Nagaur, no notice had been given to the parties regarding transfer of the complaint. On 6.7.91 District Forum, Nagaur passed an order for issuing notices to the parties. It appears from the proceedings dated 24.8.91 that the complainant and opposite party No.1 BPL India had been served and they had appeared before the District Forum, Nagaur. We have gone through the file of the complaint and it is clear that so far as M/s. Vasundhara i. e. the appellant is concerned, it was never served by the District Forum, Nagaur. It is clear that the District Forum, Nagaur has dismissed the complaint so far as BPL India was concerned. It has passed order for refund of the above amount as against the appellant who was opposite party No.2 in the complaint. It was necessary for the District Forum, Nagaur to serve notice upon the appellant when the appellant had neither any notice from the District Forum, Ajmer to appear on a particular date before the District Forum, lant. Thus the appellant did not have reasonable opportunity to contest the complaint. This appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed and rei manded to the District Forum, Nagaur.