No. 4/05.02.2009.

Appellant in person and Respondent through Mr. L. M. Sharma, the Ld. Advocate are present.  It appears that before the Forum the complaint case was fixed on 16.05.2008 when Complainant was present and next date was fixed on 03.06.2008 for filing Written Objection by the O.P. No. 1.  On the same next date 03.06.2008 Complainant was again present.  Next date was fixed on 05.08.2008 for Written Objecttion by the O.P. No. 1. as the same still was not filed.  On 05.08.2008 the Complainant was absent when the matter was called.  None was present for the O.P. No. 1and O.P. No. 2 did not enter appearance but still the Complainant was directed to show-cause in writing on 03.10.2008 as to why the complaint shall not be dismissed for default.  The Complainant showed cause on 03.10.2008 but the cause shown was not accepted and the case was dismissed for default.  We have heard the Appellant in person and the Respondent No. 1 through Mr. Sharma, the Ld. Advocate.  We fail to understand how the Forum directed the Complainant to show cause for his non-appearance on 05.08.2008 as the said date was fixed for filing Written Objection by O.P. No. 1 and from the order itself it is apparent that O.P. No. 1 was not present and did not take any step.  In such circumstances if the absence of the Complainant did not cause any hindrance for passing appropriate order against the O.P. No. 1 for their non-appearance and non-compliance of the direction there was no chance that the complaint could have been taken for consideration on merit.

We have considered the show-cause matter and we find from the copy of the application showing cause that Complainant stated that he reached the District Forum on 05.08.2008 at about 12.20 p.m. and by that time the Members of the District Forum had risen for the day and upon enquiry it was learnt that the District Forum had started sitting at about 10.30 a.m for few days.  It is common knowledge that earlier the Forum was not sitting at 10.30 on any day and they were having a practice of sitting late.  In such circumstances if the Forum has changed its practice altering its sitting hours, some time should have been given to the parties to get acquinted with the altered practice.  When the Complainant has explained the actual reason in his application showing cause we do not find any reason for not accepting the same. 

 We also come to know that admittedly the complaint was filed with prayer (a) for certain payment and with prayer (b) & (c) for compensation.  It is admitted by both parties before us that the payment referred under prayer (a) have been already made after the complaint was filed and notice was sent to the O.Ps.  Therefore, it appears that only the question of compensation is required to be decided and the scope of the complaint has thus been reduced by reason of the developments during pendency of the proceeding.

Therefore, in above view of the findings we set aside the impugned order and the proceeding is restored to file and the Forum below is directed to decide the complaint case in the light of the observation made hereinabove in accordance with law expeditiously.