NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2606/2013

HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. CHINMAYA INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION & 2 ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. KAPIL KHER

15 Jul 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2606 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 19/12/2012 in Appeal No. 328/2012 of the State Commission Kerala)
1. HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED
9/1 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD,
KOLKATA - 700 001
W.B
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. CHINMAYA INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION & 2 ORS.
ADI SANKARA NILAYAM, ADI SANKARA MARG, VELIYANAD, EDAKKATTUVAYAL
ERNAKULAM
KERALA
2. GEO MOTORS,
N.H BYE PASS, VYTILLA,
KOCHI
KERALA
3. SALES MANAGER, GEO MOTORS,
N.H BYE PASS, VYTTILA
KOCHI
KERALA
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Kapil Kher, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Advocate

Dated : 15 Jul 2014
ORDER

 

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1.      Costs of Rs.5,000/- paid to the respondent.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner heard.

 

3.      The impugned order is signed by Shri M. K. Abdulla Sona, Hon. Member.  It was not heard and signed by second member.   Section 14(2A)) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly, specifically and unequivocally lays down:

“(14(2A). Every order made by the District Forum under sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the proceeding:

Provided that where the proceedings is conducted by the President and one member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point or points and the opinion of the majority shall be the order of the District Forum”.

4.      Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that there is an amendment in the Act.  The amendment reads that a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit. 

5.      This amendment only means that the signatures of the President are not necessary.  He need not hear the appeal.  However, it does not say that the presence of the second member is dispenced with.  It is mandatory and incumbent that before the

District Forum or the State Commission, at least 2 members, irrespective of the fact whether they are the President or not, may hear the appeal.  It may not be heard by a single member.

6.      Consequently, the order passed by the State Commission is no order at all.  It is a non-existent order.  Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission and remand the case back to the State Commission to hear and decide the case afresh as per law.  The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 28.7.2014.   

          Since this is an old case, a bench of State Commission will be constituted by at least 2 members and the State Commission is requested to decide the case within 45 days form 28.7.2014 onwards.

          The revision petition stands disposed of.

          A copy of this order be given dasti.

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.