PAWAN BANSAL Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order two appeals (Nos.548 and 617 of 1997) are being disposed of. Both the appeals have been filed by the opposite parties - one by the Doctor and the other by the Insurance Company, from whom the doctor has taken the insurance policy. The District Forum vide order dated March 19,1997 directed the opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the complainant-Darshan Singh. The compensation was granted after recording a finding of negligent act on the part of Dr. Pawan Bansal in the matter of inserting a nail negligently, who has multiple fracture on left arm.

(2.) It is not necessary at this stage to give pleadings of the parties or the evidence produced as the appeals are to be accepted on the technical ground raised that arguments were heard by the President of the District Forum while sitting in the company of another Member - Mr. Bhardwaj whereas the final order supplied to the parties is signed by the President of the District Forum and Member Mrs. Amrit Raina. We have perused the record of the case and we find merit in the contention. Proceedings of the record indicate that arguments were partly heard on February 26, 1997 by the President and Mr. Bhardwaj, Member. For remaining arguments the case was adjourned to March 5,1997. Since quorum was incomplete the case was adjourned on that date to March 12,1997. On that date, parties were not ready with the arguments and the case was adjourned to March 19,1997 by the Bench of the Forum consisting of President and Member, Mr. Bhardwaj. It was on March 19, 1997 that the impugned order was passed and the order on the proceedings shows that complainant had appeared in person and nobody had appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. Arguments had already been heard and the complaint was accepted. Opposite party was liable to make payment of Rs.90,000/- as mentioned above. This order has been signed by the President and the Member, Mrs. Amrit Raina. The final detailed order bears the date of order as March 19,1997 but on the final order President and Member Amrit Raina purports to have signed the same on March 14,1997. At this stage, it may be observed that date under their signatures may be due to an inadvertant mistake. However, taking the date of announcement as March 19,1997 and that the order was signed by the President and Mrs. Amrit Raina, we are of the view that the provisions of Sec.14 (2) of Consumer Protection Act have not been adhered to, which requires proceeding referred to in Sub-section (1) to be conducted by the President and atleast one Member thereof sitting together and Section (2a) was inserted in 1993 that every order made by the District Forum under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and Members or Member who conducted the proceedings. It may be observed that the proceedings contemplated under Sec.14 of the Act relates to finally hearing the parties and recording finding on defect or deficiency in the goods or in the services hired and thereafter granted one or more of the reliefs as provided under Sec.14 (1) (d) of the Act. Before that procedure is prescribed under Sec.13 of the Act which is to be completed before starting proceedings under Sec.14 of the Act. For completing the proceeding under Sec.13 of the Act the presence of the Member or Members may not be there but as far as final proceedings under Sec.14 of the Act are concerned they have to be conducted by the President and atleast one of the Members and the final order has also to be passed by the President and such Member or Members who has/have participated in these proceedings. In the present case, since the Member, Mrs. Amrit Raina had not heard the arguments, it was not Mrs. Amrit Raina who was to sign the judgment, but it was Mr. Bhardwaj.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals are allowed. Order of the District Forum is set aside and the case is sent back to the District Forum for deciding the case on merits according to law. Since the order of the District Forum has been set aside, the money already paid would be returned to the Insurance Company and if necessary, restitution proceedings would be started. Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on June 15, 1998. Copy of the order and the record of the District Forum be sent there promptly.