VIJAYANDRA AGARWAL vs Yogendra Kumar

ORIGINALLY this was filed as an appeal. However it was registered as a revision subject to all just exceptions. The complaint was filed by Yogendra Kumar Sharma against Vijendra Agarwal before the District Forum, Kota on 23.5.89. This complaint was decided on 2.11.89. The order passed by the District Forum against the opposite party petitioner was ex parte. An application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed by Vijendra Kumar supported by affidavit. The District Forum passed the order on this application on 9.1.90. Certain conditions were imposed for setting aside the ex parte order.

AGGRIEVED Vijendra Agarwal filed the appeal which was registered as a revision. After the receipt of the record we heard Mr. M. P. Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Yogendra Kumar Non-petitioner. The order under revision is signed by one of the members of the District Forum, Kota. It is not necessary to make a detailed probe in the matter, for, we are of opinion that this revision should succeed on a short point namely that the order atleast should have been passed by two members of the District Forum. It was held by the State Commission in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Kanchan Singh Verma (Appeal No. 16/89, decided on July 7, 1989) as under:- "Bearing in mind the above principles of interpretation and the object and the intendment of the legislation in promulgating the Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, we will determine validity or otherwise of the order. There is no provision for fixing the quorum, if one member out of the three members including the President is unable to attend a sitting of the District Forum, the orders affecting the rights of the parties (complainant and opposite party) passed would not be rendered invalid as majority of members would constitute quorum for a sitting of the Dictrict Forum. We are of opinion that any order of the District Forum affecting the rights of the parties, i.e. the complainant and opposite-party which is passed during the pendency of the complain should be pronounced and signed by atleast two members of the District Forum constituting the Bench, for, this is permissible under the provisions of Rule 4 (5) and Rule 3 (8) of the Rules as two members atleast constitute the Bench of the District Forum. In this case, as stated above the order is signed by one member, viz. the President of the District Forum, alone and there is nothing in the order to show that the other members or member participated in the proceedings and concurred in the order passed by the President of District Forum. The District Forum, while passing the order under appeal has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or at any rate with material irregularity when the interlocutory order dated March 28, 1989 was passed by the single member (President) and, therefore, it has to be set aside. "

The same view was reiterated in Rajasthan Medical Store, Nathdwara v. Dr. Vijai Kumar Daya, Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ghata (Appeal No. 28/89, decided on Aug. 9, 1989).

IN view of this one single member of the District Forum Kota while passing the order under revision has exercised his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and that has affected the rights of the petitioner as it was passed by a single member and therefore it has to be set aside. It cannot be sustained. The revision is allowed and the order dated 9.1.1990 passed on the application dated 9.11.89 for setting aside the ex parte order passed in Complaint Case No. 205/89 is set aside. The case is sent back to the District Forum, Kota to decide the application for setting aside the ex parte order afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. Parties shall bear their respective costs. Revision allowed.