AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 9.1.1991 passed by the District Forum, Udaipur in complaint Case No. 6/91, by which the complaint was dismissed. The District Forum held that the complainants are not consumers and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. In view of the short question involved in this appeal it is not necessary to give a detailed resume of the facts. Suffice it to state that the grievance of the complainants is that the service rendered by the opposite party-respondent suffers from deficiency as envisaged by Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Act, for, they have hired the services. The District Forum did not issue any notice to the opposite party and passed the impugned order on 9.1.1991.
WE have carefully perused the averments made in the complaint and the reliefs sought by them. "Complainant", "complaint", "Consumer", "Deficiency" & "Service" have been defined in Sec. 2(1)(b), (c), (d), (g) & (o) of the Act respectively. Having carefully perused the aforesaid definitions and the averments made in the complaint, we are firmly of the opinion that the complainants are consumers as envisaged by Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act. The averments made in the complaint show that the complainants have suffered loss on account of the negligence of the opposite party. They have claimed compensation. The District Forum was not justified in dismissing the complaint on the ground on which it did. It was held by the State Commission in II (1991) CPJ 311 as under : "A perusal of the complaint shows that the case of the complainant is that it has suffered loss on account of the negligence of the opposite parties (Bank). The District Forum made an erroneous approach to the case. In the fact of the averments that were made in the complaint, the documents filed with it and the version of the case, the District Forum was required to direct its attention to the following questions : (i) Whether the complainant has hired the services of the Bank for consideration? (ii) Whether on the facts pleaded and proved there was any deficiency in rendering service by the Bank to the complainant ? and (iii) Whether by complainant was entitled to any relief/reliefs envisaged by Section 14(1) of the Act? After adjudicating the aforesaid three questions it should have disposed of the complaint according to law but instead that it failed to determine the aforesaid three material questions which were necessary for the disposal of the complaint. According to it the complaint was defective for not joining Transport Company, Natwar Fancy Store and Post Office. If the services rendered by the Bank were deficient, the reliefs could be granted to the complainant in their absence also under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. They are not necessary parties to the complaint. In view of this conclusion, we are left with no alternative but to set aside the order dated 14.3.90 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur. The case is sent back to it with a direction to decide the complaint afresh keeping in view the observations made hereinabove in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard. If any of the parties or the parties make a request to the District Forum for adducing evidence, it will be open to the District Forum to record it."
The appeal succeeds and the order dated 9.1.91 is set aside. The case is sent back to the District Forum, Udaipur with a direction to take the complaint on its file and further proceed with the trail of the complaint in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec. 13(2) of the Act and decide it in accordance with law. The District Forum shall fix a date for the appearance of the parties. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed with costs.