This appeal has been decided by a single non-judicial Member of the State Commission.  Normally at the State level and at the National level, the appeals or the Original Petitions or the Revision Petitions are decided by a Bench consisting of two or more than two Members.  Section 16(1B)(ii) provides that “a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more Members, as the President may deem fit”.  Notice was issued to the respondent as well as the Registrar of the State Commission, Delhi.  Mr.Rajinder Singh, Registrar was directed to appear in person.  He is present and has tendered an unqualified apology for the letter dated 12.3.2009 written by him, which this Commission found to be derogatory.  The unqualified apology tendered is accepted.  He has written in his letter dated 25.8.2009 that as per record “there is no separate order passed by the then President of the State Commission, Delhi assigning this matter to be heard by a single Member Bench under the provisions of Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.

          In view of the fact that the President of the State Commission had not passed any order constituting a single Member Bench to hear the Original Petitions, the order under challenge deserves to be set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.  Accordingly the order under challenge is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 

Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 19.10.2009.

Since this is an old matter, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of first appearance.

Stay, if any, granted by the State Commission earlier, may continue.