1. This revision petition is directed against interim order dated 20/09/2012 passed by the Dist. Forum, Nanded in consumer complaint No. 186/2012 directing the petitioners original opponents to maintain the status quo of the vehicle of the complainant until further order. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the revision petition are that: Rrespondent Shri.Govind Patil had borrowed loan from the revision petitioners for purchasing truck. However, the revision petitioners finance company extended threat to attach truck alleging that the complainant is defaulter. Therefore, the complainant has filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service. It was agreed by the complainant/respondent to repay the loan payment by way of installments and as the complainant failed to pay installment regularly, the revision petitioners/opponent finance company extended threats to attach truck. By interim application, the complainant sought interim relief for maintaining status quo directing the opponent revision petitioner not to attach the truck. 4. On hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant the President of the Dist. Consumer Forum Beed passed the interim order. 5. Feeling aggrieved by that order the opponents came to this Commission in revision. 6. We heard Adv. Gangakhedkar Ld. Counsel for the revision petitioners. Perused the copy of interim order and copies of affidavit of autherised signatory of the revision petitioners. However, we have had no opportunity to hear the respondent /complainant as he refused to accept the notice and remained absent. 7. Adv.Gangakhedkar for the revision petitioners pointed out copy of impugned order and submitted that the President of Dist. Forum, Beed alone passed the impugned order though he alone is not empowered to pass the order and therefore the impugned order is illegal . He has also supported his contention by pointing out the provisions of Sec. 14 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. This legal position can not be disputed. As per the provision of Sec. 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. Every proceeding shall be conducted by the President of the Dist. Forum and at least one member sitting together. Further Sub.Sec. 2(A) of said Sec. which is mandatory provides that every order made by the Dist. Forum shall be signed by the President and Member or Members of the Dist.Forum. But it appears from the copy of impugned order that the acting President of the Dist. Forum without following the mandatory provisions of Sec. 14(2) as well as Sec. 14(2)(A) of the Consumer Protection Act committed gross error in passing the interim order. Therefore, the same can not be sustained in law. 7. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order being illegal liable tobe set aside. Hence the following order. O R D E R 1. Revision petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. 2. The Dist. Forum is directed to reconsider the interim application of the complainant giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 3. No order as to cost. 4. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties. | 
