Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainants in nutshell is that the complainants being agriculturist have kept various kinds of pumpkins in the cold storage of OP No.1. For that also complainant allegedly paid money to OP No.1. When the complainants wanted to take return of the pumpkins, OP No.1 failed to supply the same as said vegetables have been damaged. Complainants demanded the compensation but the OPs did not listen to it. So the complaint was filed.

4.      OP No.1 in spite of service of notice refused to participate.

5.      OP No.2 Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies has filed written version stating that he is not liable for the goods. He submitted that he has only discharged statutory duty and he has nothing to comment further.

6.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum have passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            The complaint is allowed in part and the Opp.party No.1 is directed to pay total compensation of Rs.8,39,655/- to the complainants towards the loss of pumpkins, mental pain and agony etc. at the rate of Rs.15/- per kg within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OP No.1 shall be thereafter liable to pay interest on this amount @6% per annum till the date of actual payment. The case is accordingly disposed of without any separate order as to cost.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the fact that the complaint is not maintainable. According to him section 12(1)(c) of the Act has not been complied because filing simple application without order being passed thereto is no necessary compliance of law seeking relief by group of complainants. Further, he submitted that the learned District Forum without any application of judicial mind to the fact and law in this case passed the impugned order in a cryptic manner. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he has filed the petition u/s 12(1)(c) of the Act and it has been allowed. He submitted that once notice has been issued to the OPs as per order dated 22.9.2014, it is deemed that section 12(1)(i) of the Act has been  complied. He further submitted that the learned District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order in absence of any proof of the OPs to place that claim. Therefore, he submitted to confirm the impugned order by dismissing the appeal.

9.   Considered the submission of learned counsel for    the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.       It is for the complainants to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

11.   On perusal of the DFR, it appears that the complainants have filed the petition u/s 12(1)(c) of the Act before the learned District Forum but no order was passed either to allow or deny the application. On the other hand, it issued notice to the OPs. Section 12(1)(c) of the Act is as follows:-

                   “xxx   xxx   xxx

12(1)(c) – One or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of all, consumers so interested; or”

12.     In this case, there are ten complainants, but one complaint case is filed. The order sheet dated 22.9.2014 also shows that notice has been issued without allowing the petition filed u/s 12(i)(c) of the Act. On the other hand,  order sheet dated 22.9.2014 does not show that the petition has been allowed and the complainants have similar cause of action.

13.       In view of aforesaid facts and law, this Commission is of the view that learned District Forum without application of judicial mind has passed the impugned order. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter may be remanded to the learned District Forum to consider the application for denovo hearing of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant also has no objection to the submission of learned counsel for the respondents.

14.     In view of above submission of both parties, the appeal is allowed by remanding the matter to the learned District Forum to consider the application filed u/s 12(1)(c) of the Act and to give chance to the appellant to file written version and both parties be given opportunities to adduce evidence if any and dispose of the matter on merit including maintainability of the case within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 28.12.2021 to receive further instruction from it.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

         The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon on proper identification.

          The copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.