2002 (12) TMI 509 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of an advocate as a party before the District Forum.
2. Failure of the District Forum to determine if deficient services were rendered by the Respondent Company to the Appellant.
3. Setting aside the impugned order and directing the District Forum to reconsider the matter.

Issue 1 - Inclusion of Advocate as Party:
The judgment highlighted that the advocate for the Respondent was unnecessarily included as a party before the District Forum. It was clarified that an advocate cannot be a party in such disputes. Consequently, the advocate's name was ordered to be deleted from the array of Respondents.

Issue 2 - Failure to Determine Deficient Services:
The key issue revolved around the failure of the District Forum to ascertain whether the Respondent Company had provided deficient services to the Appellant. The Appellant had deposited a significant amount with the Respondent, which was not refunded as per the scheme laid down by the Company Law Board. Despite the Company's financial difficulties leading to a revised repayment scheme, the District Forum dismissed the complaint without addressing the core question of deficient services. The judgment emphasized that the District Forum's role was to determine if deficient services were rendered, irrespective of decisions made by the Company Law Board.

Issue 3 - Setting Aside the Impugned Order:
In response to the District Forum's failure to address the crucial aspect of deficient services, the judgment set aside the impugned order. The directive was issued for the District Forum to reevaluate the matter and decide whether deficient services were provided by the Respondent Company to the Appellant. The District Forum was instructed to consider the schemes laid down by the Company Law Board and make a fresh decision in accordance with the law. Both parties were summoned to appear before the District Forum on a specified date, emphasizing the need for a thorough reconsideration of the case.

In conclusion, the judgment underscored the importance of the District Forum's role in determining the provision of services by the Respondent Company to the Appellant, despite decisions made by the Company Law Board. The District Forum was directed to conduct a comprehensive review based on the schemes laid down and make a fresh decision, highlighting the critical nature of addressing the issue of deficient services in consumer disputes.