ORDER NO. 3 DT. 12.2.09

This Revision Petiton is directed against the impugned order dt. 31.12.08 passed by the Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Case No. 216 of 2008.  Mr. U.Jha, Ld. Advocate for the Revisional Petitioner moved the Revision Petition and verbally submitted that this Bench consisting of two Non-Judicial Members was not competent to hear and decide the matter as he felt that certain law points were involved to this Revision Petition.  He further contended that such being the case the matter should be decided when the Hon'ble President of this Commission would also be available in the Bench.  This verbal prayer of the Revisional Petitioner was heard and after consideration this was rejected by us as we feel that this Bench consisting of two Non-Judicial Members is quite competent to hear and decide the instant issue.  In support of our considered view we have taken into account the judgement in C.O. No. 3442 of 2004 in the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata wherein it was inter alia held "Thus, if Section 140 read jointly with Section 16 of the said Act, this court has no hesitation to hold that each Bench of the State Commission, be it headed by the President or not, has equal power and authority to discharge all the functions of the State Commission."  It was further held by the Hon'ble High Court that ".........the petitioner in my view cannot now question the jurisdiction of the Bench in which the said Appeal was transferred to try the said Appeal."  We have also considered the citation of the Hon'ble National Commission in 2006 CPJ 871 (CP) wherein the Hon'ble National Commission also held, "State Commission-Validity of orders passed by Members only - Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 14(2) & 2(a), Section 18 - 29A - Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules 1988 - Order dt. 10.12.97 passed by two Members of the State Commission without junction of the President - whether the said orders were bad in law - held, "No, applying the ratio in Gulzarilal's case, 1996 CTJ 851 (SC)(CP).  In Civil Appeal No.33 of 1996 in Gulzarilal Agarwal Vs. Accounts Officer the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement and orders held inter alia, "In view of above discussion we are of the opinion that the National Commission committed an error in holding that the order passed by the two Members of the State Commission without the conjunction of the President is illegal and void.  Impugned order to that extent is set aside."  Having considered the foregoing pronouncement of the Apex Court read with the judgement and orders of the Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, we hold that we would hear the instant Revision Petition today and now.

The Ld. Advocate for the Revisional Petitioner submitted that the impugned order dt. 31.12.08 was not sustainable as the issue of maintainability was not decided in spite of their application in such respect and this was stated as bad and not sustainable.  It was also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that instead of deciding the issue of maintainability the Ld. Forum passed an order for filing written version on the next date on 16.1.09 with payment of cost of Rs. 200/-.  This was also agitated to be not sustainable.

We have considered the submission of the Revision petitioner and have perused the impugned order as well.  However, firstly we find that the Ld. Forum instead of deciding the issue of maintainability then and there and instantly passed its order to consider the same in course of subsequent hearing on the logic that the proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act being a summary trial process it would be best for the interest of justice to adjudicate on the complaint taking together all the issues involved, more so when the issue of maintainability being an integral part of the incidence leading to the complaint was relevant.  We find no impropriety whatsoever in the foregoing stand taken by the Ld. Forum which is perfectly legal and in order and has no irregularity whatsoever.  As for the issue of filing written version, we find that it was the OP No. 1's opportunity, who is the Revisional Petitioner here and who failed to file the written version on that date, i.e. 3.12.08, and instead of denying further opportunity to file the written version the Ld. Forum quite judiciously gave the Revisional Petitioner (OP No. 1 before the Forum) another opportunity, but at a cost of Rs. 200/- only. Here also we do not find any irregularity or impropriety in the foregoing order which is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

In the foregoing circumstances, we do not find anything wrong in the impugned order and also find that the Revisional Petitioner's submission is fully devoid of any merit and substance.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Revision Petition without any order as to cost.