RAJINDER SINGH BEDI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum dated 20.2.2007.

(2.) Complaint (CC No.654 of 2006) of complainant Rajinder Singh Bedi is pending before the District Forum, Gurdaspur. On 30.1.2007 the representative of the complainant had tendered 12 documents and closed his evidence and the case was adjourned to 20.2.2007 by the District Forum for evidence of the opposite party, Punjab National Bank. On 20.2.2007 following order was passed by the District Forum: "present: Mr. Kuldip Raj Kaila, representative of the complainant. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Advocate Counsel for the OP. Evidence of the opposite party has not been produced. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has brought to the notice of the Forum that he could not contact his party and on that account he cannot produce the evidence today, and prayed for adjournment which is opposed by the representative of the complainant and he has stated that adjournment can be granted subject to payment of cost of Rs.500 as per Consumer Protection Act read with Sec.3 (a ). In my opinion, when the learned Counsel for the opposite party could not contact his party there are sufficient reasons to adjourn the case. Hence, the case is adjourned to 12.3.2007 for evidence of the opposite party. Moreover, today was the first date and sufficient opportunities are required to be given in the interest of justice. "

(3.) The complainant has filed the present revision petition that as per provisions of Sec.13 (3a) of the C. P. Act, 1986 the adjournment could not have been granted unless the costs were imposed and that too to the tune of at least Rs.500. Sec.13 (3a) of the CP Act reads as under: " (3a) Every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite party where the complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months, if it requires analysis or testing of commodities: provided that no adjournment shall be ordinarily granted by the District Forum unless sufficient cause is shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been recorded in writing by the Forum: provided further that the District Forum shall make such orders as to the costs occasioned by the adjournment as may be provided in the regulations made under this Act. " Regulation 11 of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005 reads as under: "11. Adjournment.- (1) Every proceeding before a Consumer Forum shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and as per the requirements of the Act. (2) The Consumer Forum shall record the reasons for any adjourn-ment made by it. (3) The cost of adjournment, if asked by the opposite party or parties, shall not be less than five hundred rupees per adjournment and could be more depending upon the value and nature of the complaint as may be decided by the Consumer Forum. (4) The complainant, appellant or petitioner, as the case may be, may also be burdened with cost unless sufficient cause is shown for seeking adjournment: provided that in the circumstances of a particular case, the amount of cost imposed may be less than five hundred rupees but in no case less than one hundred rupees. (5) The cost imposed may be given to the other party or parties to defray his or their expenses or be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account to be maintained by the respective Consumer Forum, as the Consumer Forum may order. (6) If any adjournment is granted without awarding cost, the order sheet shall mention the reasons thereof. (7) All orders adjourning the matter shall be signed by the President and Members constituting the Bench and not by the Court Master or Bench Clerk. (8) Non-availability of a lawyer who is representing the party shall not be a ground for seeking adjournment of the matter unless absence is beyond the control of the lawyer such as his sudden illness or bereavement in the family. "