Mr. Justice B.N. Sinha, President—This appeal is directed against order dated 5th August, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 91 of 1991 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.

2. The facts of the case as put forth by the complainant may be briefly noticed. The complainant has a Current Account No. 1551, Folio No. 149 in the UCO Bank at Ranchi — the opposite party. The complainant is a IncomeTax Assessee and a resident of District Dhanbad. He received a refund order/voucher for Rs. 5,640/- from the Income-tax Department in respect of excess payment made by him towards his income tax. He deposited the refund voucher with the UCO Bank-the opposite party at Ranchi on 17.7.84 to be credited in his current account after being collected from the State Bank of India, Ranchi. But even after several reminders made by the complainant, no reply was received nor the amount under said refund vocucher was credited in his current account and therefore he presented complaint before the District Forum, Dhanbad on 9.5.91 praying for payment of the amount of refund voucher and for compensation for the loss caused to him due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Bankopposite party.

3. It appears from the order sheet of the case before the District Forum that notices were sent to the opposite party but the opposite party did not appear and consequently by order dated 14.8.91 the case was decided by the District Forum directing the Bank to pay Rs. 5000.00 to the complainant as compensation besides Rs. 5,640.00 the amount of the refund voucher with 18% interest thereon. It appears from the order dated 3.10.91 in the case that the opposite party filed an application before the District Forum for recall of the order dated 14.8.91 and this application was dismissed by the District Forum. Subsequent thereto later on at 2 p.m. on the same date, i.e., on 3.10.91 the learned Advocate of tine opposite party appeared and prayed for recall of the order passed and disposed of the case on merit after hearing both the parties. This prayer was allowed and after hearing both the parties the impugned order dated 5.8.92 was passed by the District Forum.

4. Because the memo of appeal could not be presented before this Commission within thirty days from the date of the impugned order, an application under Rule 8(4) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules has been filed by the complainant stating the circumstances under which the memo of appeal could not be presented within the period prescribed u/Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) for filing appeals before this Commission. It has been stated by the appellant that the impugned order was not passed in presence of the parties and the copy of the order of the Forum could be available to the appellant on 24.8.92 and within thirty days thereof the memo of appeal has been presented before this Commission. This plea of the appellant is supported by the endorsement made at the foot of the impugned order. Hence the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is being decided on merit.

5. At the very outset it may be mentioned that the entire proceeding was conducted by the District Forum in utter contravention of the provisions of the Act. The District Forum was not justified in recalling its ex-parte order dated 14.8.91 because the Act does not empower the different Redressal Agencies under the Act to recall or review its ex-parte order or restore the case dismissed for default.

6. It is evident from the facts stated above that the refund order was presented before the Bank by the complainant on 17.7.84. But the case was filed before the District Forum on 2.4.91. On the date the case was presented before the District Forum, the claim of the complainant had become stale. Hence the complaint was not maintainable.

7. Moreover, it appears that the opposite p