PRESENT:
Mr. Justice P.C. MISHRA, PRESIDENT
Mr. BISWANATH RATH, MEMBER
Mrs. MRINALINI PADHI, MEMBER

Date of hearing : 28-6-95 Date of  Judgement : 28-6-95 

Mr . P.C. MISHRA, PRESIDENT

This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Sundergarh in Misc. Case No.2 of 1992 arising out of C.D. case No.93 of 1991. The present appellant filed the aforesaid C.D. Case No.93 of 1991 against the present respondent praying for award of compensation as well as for directing to pay the outstanding dues to the complainant. This case was filed by the Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela purporting to act on behalf of Shri A.K. Sahu. In the said case, the District Forum issued notice to the opposite party to file show cause for which the complainant had filed requisites on 13-12-1991. The Court had fixed 10-1-1992 for filing show cause. On 10-1-1992, an application was filed on behalf of the opposite party in the said case praying for an adjournment to show cause. The Court posted the case to 7-2-92 for the purpose. On 7-2-1992, the complainant was not present in Court. The opposite party filed show cause and the Court fixed the case to 7-3-1992 for hearing. Though in the order sheet, the date "7-3-91" has been written which obviously is a mistake. The Court also ordered for informing the petitioner meaning the complainant. Against this order, a note has been made probably by the office in the margin that such information has been issued to the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that no such information was ever received by him. On the date to which the case was fixed for hearing, the complainant was absent, but the opposite party was present in Court. The District Forum dismissed the case on that date for default of the complainant. It is against this order that Misc. Case No.2 of 1992 was filed praying for restoration of the case on the ground that the complainant was unaware of the date of hearing of the case. The District Forum dismissed the said miscellaneous case holding that it was the duty of the complainant to follow the dates fixed in the case and there was no obligation on the part of the Court to keep the complainant informed about the posting of the case. This appeal is directed against the aforesaid order.

2. In the appeal it has been contended by the Secretary of the Consumer Protection Council who is the appellant in this appeal that the date of hearing having not been notified to the complainant, no steps for hearing could be taken on 7th of March, 1992 on which date the case was dismissed for default. It has been submitted that the Court having asked the office to inform the complainant about the date of hearing, it was obligatory on the part of the office to inform the complainant, but the same having not been done, dismissal of the case was illegal. Mr. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent invited our attention to Rule 4(8) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and contended that it is obligatory on the part of the parties to appear before the District Forum on the date of hearing or on any other date on which the hearing is adjourned and therefore, the District Forum was perfectly justified in dismissing the case for default. His further contention is that no notice was required to be sent for information of the complainant as to the date posted for hearing and, therefore, absence of notice cannot be a ground for restoration of the case,. According to Mr. Rao, the interpretation of sub rule (8) of Rule 4 is that until a date of hearing is fixed, it is not obligatory on the part of the parties to appear before the District Forum. But once the date of hearing is fixed, the obligation is squarely on the parties and there is no further requirement ink the rule to issue notice to the parties. It is elementary in our opinion that if it becomes an obligation on the part of the parties to appear before the District Forum on the date of hearing, they must be made aware of the date so fixed. Up to 10-1-1992, the proceeding was being conducted under Section 13 of the Act, but according to the interpretation given to sub rule (8) of Rule 4 of the Rules by Mr. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, there was no obligation on the part of the parties to appear before the District Forum. It is "7-2-1992" when the District Forum fixed a date for hearing of the case. So all the parties had the obligation to appear on the date so fixed provided they are aware of the date of hearing. The order sheet dated 7-2-1992 clearly mentions that the complainant was not present on that date. It is for that reason that the District Forum directed for issue of an information to the complainant. Though a note has been made showing as if the information has been sent, but there is nothing as record to show that the information had reached the complainant. In the impugned order , the District Forum does not take care to find as to whether or not the said intimation had reached the complainant. In the absence of any assertion of proof to the contrary, our conclusion will be that the notice said to have been issued on 7-2-1992 informing the complainant about the date fixed for hearing did not reach the complainant. Consequently, there was sufficient cause explaining the absence of the complainant on the date of hearing. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the original complaint case to file which we hereby direct. The records of the District Forum be immediately sent back who on receipt of the records shall proceed to dispose of the case on merits. Ink order to save time, we direct the parties to appear before the District Forum, Sundergarh-2, Rourkela on 2nd August, 1995 on which date the District Forum, if possible, will commence the hearing of the case or fix any other suitable date for the purpose.