The redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act should not strike formal issues or adjudicate upon them seriatim in the trial of consumer disputes.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President — Whether the redressal agencies under the Act should strike formal issues and adjudicate upon them seriatim in the trial of consumer disputes ? This is inter-alia the significant question in this appeal.

2. In this order of affirmance the facts merit notice with relative brevity. Sh, Mahesh Chand Gupta, a partner of M/s Usha Enterprises had preferred the complaint on the allegations that the said firm had opened an Account No. 42151 in its name on the 23rd of April, 1992, with the Panipat branch of the State Bank of India. The allegation was that the complainant had issued a cheque on the 27th of August, 1992 in favour of M/s Oriental Assurance Company Ltd. for the coverage of insurance risk for the vehicle belonging to the firm. The primal grievance was that the said cheque was not honoured by the bank despite the fact that there was a credit balance of Rs. 57006/- standing in the firm’s name on the date and the same was returned with the remarks “disputed case” to the Insurance Company. On enquiry from the bank the complainant was informed that an ex-partner of the firm had written a letter to them on the basis of which the account had been declared disputed. Aggrieved thereby the complaint was preferred for alleged deficiency in the banking service and the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- was sought.

3. It would appear that since the Senior Branch Manager of the State Bank of India alone had been made a party without formally impleading the State Bank as well an appearance was put in by the then incumbent of the said office Sh. O.P. Gupta. In his written statement he stoutly controverted all the allegations of the complainant and took up the firm plea that the amount of the cheque had necessarily to be withheld because of a hot dispute betwixt the partners of the firm with regard thereto. It was pointed out that the matter had gone to such a length that the criminal proceedings had been initiated by one of the partners against the others. The technical pleas taken included the one that the complaint was not maintainable against him in person because the State Bank of India being a corporate body had not been arrayed an opposite party as such.

4. On the pleadings of the parties the District Forum proceeded to strick issues with meticulous technicality as under :—

(1) Whether the respondent has failed to render services with respect to Account No. 42151 in the name of the firm and had thus caused loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 35000/-as alleged in para Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the complaint ? OPP

(2) Whether the complaint against respondent is not maintainable as it is not a juristic person ? OPR

(3) Whether the complaint is vague, if so, to what effect ? OPR

(4) Whether Mahesh Chand Gupta alone has no locus standi to file the complaint on behalf of M/s Us ha Enterprises ? OPR

(5) Whether the complaint is bad for non-joiner of Krishan Bhardwaj other partner of the firm ? OPR

(6) Whether Account No. 42151 was opened after 31.3.1992 on behalf of re-constituted firm M/s Usha Enterprises with two partners, if so, to what effect ? OPP

(7) Relief.

5. In support of his case the appellant chose to rest contents by tendering certain documents without even putting in his own affidavit evidence on the record. The respondent Sh. O.P. Gupta however stepped into the witness box and deposed on oath as RW1. The District Forum in its remarkably detailed and exhaustive order took up each issue separately and recorded clear cut findings thereon. It held on Issue No. 1 that the respondent had bona-fide stopped the payment of the cheque because of a raging dispute betwixt the three original partners of the firm and further no loss occurred to the complainant. On Issue No. 2 it was found that the complaint against the respondent Sh. O.P. Gupta the incumbent of the office of the Senior Branch Manager, Panipat in his individual capacity was not maintainable because the State Bank of India as such had