Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Presiding Member:

Mr.Mayuresh Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant.  Ms.Pallavi Khangaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.  None for the Respondent No.2 though duly served. 

Heard Advocates present finally.  Advocate for the Appellant states that as recorded in the order he was not able to attend the District Forum.  However, the District Forum should have decided the complaint on merit rather than dismissing the complaint for default.  The Advocate for the Respondent No.1 states that the Appellant has not produced any record to show that he was not able to attend the District Forum and she objected for allowing the appeal.

     Admittedly, the complaint is of the year 2009 and the Appellant remained absent on four consecutive dates.  However, it is  cardinal principle of the justice that the matter should be decided on merit.  As the Appellant remained absent, the District Forum should have decided the complaint on merit on the basis of evidence  available on record.  As the order passed by the District Forum is not passed on merit, in the interest of justice we are of the view that the same is required to be remanded back to the District Forum.  Hence, the order:

O  R  D  E  R

      (i)            Appeal is partly allowed.

    (ii)            The order of the District Forum is set aside and it is remanded back to the District Forum to dispose of the same after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties.

 (iii)            The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 02/09/2013.

 (iv)            Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 25^th July, 2013.