S.K. Dubey, President - This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short the ‘Act’) against the order dated 19-12-1994 passed in Case No. 45/93 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Raipur(for short the ‘District Forum’).

2. The complainant in his complaint averred that he purchased a thresher of Tarson Multicrop Autopower of Ha. 16,855/- on 23-11-1991 from Vikki Trading Company manufactured by Electrical Emporium the respondent. The thresher developed several manufacturing defects and therefore when the defects were not removed either by the dealer or by the respondent he had to approach before the District Forum. The respondent contented the complaint. The defence version was that Vikki Trading Company was not its authorized dealer. There was no relationship between the appellant and the respondent of the consumer and the manufacturer, the respondent is not the manufacturer of Tarson Threshers. The appellant on the plea so raised in defence filed an application to implead the Vikki Trading Company as a party. The District Forum dismissed the application on the ground that there is no provision for amendment or impleadment. The complaint was also dismissed holding that there was no relationship of seller and buyer between the complainant and the opposite party.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the written submissions, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained. The District Forum ought to have decided the complaint on merits after holding an enquiry as the complainant has filed documents to demonstrate that respondent is the manufacturer of the Tarson Threshers and that the bill/cash memo shows that Vikki Trading Company is the dealer of Tarson Threshers. Therefore, it was necessary to record a categorical finding on merits after hearing the parties. Mere!y on the objection raised the complaint ought not to have been dismissed.

4. The District Forums, the State Commission arid the National Commission have all the trappings of a Civil Court and are Judicial Authority. The proceedings before them are legal proceedings, as ruled by the Supreme Court in case of Fair Air Engineers Put Ltd. & Anr. v. N.K. Modi, while considering the applicability of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to the complaint filed for breach of contract. It would be appropriate to refer to paras 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 from the report which we quote:-

"8. Section 13 provides for the procedure after receipt of complaint and for disposal thereof. The details thereof are not material except Subsections(4),(5) and(6) thereof which have cutting edge as material in this behalf. Sub-section(4) postulates that for the purposes of that section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit in respect of the enumerated matters, namely,(1) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath,(ii) 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. Under the rules framed under the Act. District Forums have got power to prescribe the procedure of collecting and discovering evidence. Under Sub-section(5), every proceeding before the District Forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-section(6) provides that where the complainant is a consumer referred to in Sub-clause(iv) of Clause(b