Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This appeal has been filed by org. opponent against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai in consumer complaint No.92/2005 decided on 07/08/2009. 2. We heard Mr.Anand Kumar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Navin Sheth, Advocate for the respondents. 3. We need not go into the merits of the case. We are finding substance in the arguments of Learned Counsel for the appellant when he argued before us that the judgement and award passed in this case by the District Consumer Forum should be quashed and set aside simply on the ground that the District Consumer Forum which decided the complaint in favour of the respondents was not properly constituted. Learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice Section 14 sub-Section (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which mandates that every proceeding referred to in sub-Section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Consumer Forum and at least one Member thereof sitting together. He also brought to our notice sub-Section (2-A) of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which further clearly lays down that every order made by the District Consumer Forum under sub-Section (1) shall be signed by its President and the Member or Members, who conducted the proceeding. These two provisions if read together would leave us in no doubt that the proceeding in the District Consumer Forum must be conducted by the President and two Members primarily, but if for any reason, one Member is absent or not available, then it shall be conducted by the President and the Member present on that particular date. The order should also be signed by the President and the Member sitting and there is no concept of Bench as far as District Consumer Forum is concerned. There can be Benches in the State Commission or in the National Commission, but so far as District Consumer Forum is concerned, primarily, Quorum of the District Consumer Forum is President and two Members and in exceptional cases, if one of the Member is absent, District Consumer Forum can consist of President and one Member, who can clearly dispose of the cases by hearing the matters before them. But, under no circumstances, Section 14 (2)&(2-A) permit only Members to conduct hearing of the case and to pass judgement thereon. Judgement of the District Consumer Forum, we reiterate must be signed by the President and two Members, if they are available and President and one Member, if only one Member is available and sitting with the President. Under no circumstances, law permits two Members to decide the consumer complaint in the District Consumer Forum. 4. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that one of the Member was designated as In-charge President. May be one of two Members has been kept as In-charge President in the absence of President of said District Consumer Forum, but the In-charge President of the District Consumer Forum is simply required to attend the cases, grant adjournment, take on record affidavits, written version, notes of arguments filed, but he is not permitted along with other Member present to dispose of the cases and to deliver judgement on behalf of the District Consumer Forum. So, except hearing and disposal of the complaint by judgement, everything else can be done by the In-charge President in the absence of the President. But, disposing of the consumer complaint must necessarily be done by the President and two Members, when both are available and by the President and only one Member, who is available with him to do judicial work. This is a mandate of law as incorporated in Section 14(2) & (2-A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 5. In our case, we are finding that the complaint was disposed of by two members, one of whom was In-charge President, but it was not disposed of by the President and Members. At the cost of repetition, we mention that the President is not inclusive of In-charge President and therefore, disposal of instant complaint by two Members alone without having President in the District Consumer Forum on that particular day must be held to be bad in law and on this count alone, appeal will have to be allowed for the procedural blunder committed by the Learned Members of the District Consumer Forum. In the circumstances, we are inclined to pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 07/08/2009 passed by District Consumer Forum is quashed and set aside. 2. Consumer Complaint No.92/2005 is remitted back to District Consumer Forum, South Mumbai for deciding afresh the complaint after hearing both the parties by the President and Member or Members sitting with him. 3. Both the parties are directed to appear in the District Consumer Forum on 27/04/2011. 4. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 5. Amount deposited by the appellant be refunded to the appellant forthwith. 6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. |
