Mr. M.L. Tiwari, Member — Both these appeals arise out of orders passed by District Forum, Rewa, in Complaint Case No. 10/Forum/90, and as the parties are also the same and the points of law involved are common. Both the appeals are decided by this common order.

2. The appellant/complainant on 29.6.90, on behalf of consumers of the village, Sir filed a complaint claiming Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. The record shows that evidence of both the parties has been recorded. The arguments were also heard on 23.11.90 and the case was posted on 4.12.90 for orders. However, on that date the President of the Forum was unwell, hence the case was adjourned for orders on 17.12.90. On that date, the complainant was absent though one of the N. As. was present. The learned Forum vide impugned orders dt. 17.12.90 rejected the application on behalf of the complainant which was for restoration of the case which was dismissed earlier on 23.8.90. This impugned order dt. 17.12.90 has been challenged in appeal No. 7/91. The complainant thereafter filed another application for recalling the order dt. 17.12.90 but that too has been rejected on the ground that the Forum is not vested with inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. and accordingly, the orders passed earlier on 17.12.90 have been maintained.

3. We have carefully perused the record, and the complainant/appellant had also addressed us in person. The short point for consideration is whether the learned Forum has power to restore the proceedings which it had dismissed in default of appellant/complainant.

4. On perusal of the record we find that though the appellant has challenged the orders passed on 17.12.90, as also the orders passed on 2.1.91, the learned Forum even on an earlier occasion on 23.8.90 dismissed the case for default of appearance of the complainant. The case was dismissed at 1.15 p.m. Thereafter, at 1.30 p.m. the complainants learned Counsel moved an application for restoration which was kept for consideration on 4.9.90. The order sheet of that date records that the proceedings as ordered on 10.8.90 shall continue Again on 19.9.90. the complainant and his Counsel remained absent and after waiting till 1.20 p.m. the case was adjourned. The subsequent order-sheets indicate that evidence has been recorded inspite of the aforesaid order dt. 23.8.90.

5. To recall, arguments were heard on 23.11.90 and after an adjournment on 17.12.90, the case has been dismissed in default of appearance of the complainant on 17.12.90.

6. In the orders dt. 17.12.90 the learned Forum observed that no specific provision has been pointed out for restoration of proceedings which were dismissed vide orders dt. 23.8.90. That furthermore in the Consumer Protection Act, there is no provision like Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C.; that Under Section 13(4) of the COPRA powers have been conferred in respect of five matter enumerated therein and therefore, the learned Forum is unable to restore the proceedings.

7. Adverting to Section 13(4) it reads, “For the purposes of this Section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely: —

(i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath;

(ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence;

(iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits;

(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source;

(v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; and

(vi) any other matter which may be prescribed.

8. The word ‘prescribed’ has also been defined under Section 2(1)(n) which means prescribed by rules made by the State Government or the Central Govt, or as the case may be. Now turning to Rule 4, Sub-rule 8 of M.P. Rules, 1987 it provides “If during