Meghalaya

StateCommission

FA/05/2013

BM, SBI - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Anjana Das - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs. T.Yangi

25 Apr 2014

ORDER

 

MEGHALAYA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SHILLONG

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2013

 

BEFORE

President: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. K. Musahary (Retd.)

Senior Member: Mr. Ramesh Bawri

 

 

            Branch Manager,

            State Bank of India,

            Laitumkhrah Branch,

            Shillong-793003

                                       ………Appellant

-Vs-

                       

            Smt. Anjana Das,

            Nongrim Hills/ Pohkseh

            Shilllong

                                ……….…Respondents

    

 

For the Appellant                           :        Mrs T. Yangi, Advocate

For the Respondent                       :        Nemo

Date of Judgment                          :         26.09.2014

 

 

Judgment and Order

 

Per: Shri Ramesh Bawri, Senior Member: This is an Appeal against the order dated 03.06.2013 passed by the learned District Forum in Consumer Case No. 16/2008. The Complainant in the said Complaint is Smti. Anjana Das while SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd is the Opposite Party No.1 and Manager, State Bank of India, Shillong the Opposite Party No. 2.

 

2.     Aggrieved by the said order dated 03.06.2013 whereby a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) was awarded and directed to be paid by Opposite Party No. 2, the said Opposite party No. 2 is before us in Appeal.

 

3.     We have heard Smti. T. Yangi, learned counsel for the Appellants and perused the records of the learned District Forum and the Memo of Appeal. The Respondent is unrepresented. Having done so, we are of the view that this Appeal is required to be disposed of on a short point, a crucial jurisdictional error that stares us in the face and goes to the root of the matter, without even entering into the merits of the case. In fact the error is such that we are even precluded from deciding the Appeal on merits without crossing the initial hurdle.

 

4.     Ground  ‘m’ of the Memo Appeal which has been pressed at the outset by learned Counsel for the Appellants reads as follows:

 

‘Most pertinently, the Hon’ble District Forum which has not recorded the evidence and was not there at the time of argument and trial proceeded to pass the judgment without having at least heard the final argument and has therefore failed to appreciate the case in toto and has caused a miscarriage of justice.’

 

5.     We have perused the order sheet of the learned District Forum as well as the impugned order dated 03.06.2013. The last order in the order sheet is dated 17.08.2012 and reads as follows:

 

“Complainant absent. Opposite Party represented and heard. Order reserved. Sd/- President, District Forum.”

 

On the other hand we find that the impugned final order dated 03.06.2013 which was passed after the order was reserved on 17.08.2012 has been passed and signed by the learned President of the learned District Forum along with Dr.(Mrs.) C. Massar, learned Member and Dr. D.R. Thangkhiew, learned Member.

 

6.     It can thus be seen at once that two infirmities have occurred. Firstly, Section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requires that “ Every proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together.” As is quite clear from the order dated 17.08.2012 passed in the order sheet of the learned District Forum, the matter was heard by the learned President alone, which is not permissible under the provisions of Section14(2) of the Act.

 

7.     Secondly, needless to say, natural justice requires that a judgment/order can only be passed by the very bench that hears a case. In this case the Complaint was heard by the learned President alone on 17.08.2012 whereas the judgment and order dated 03.06.2013 has curiously been passed and signed by the learned President along with the two other learned Members of the learned District Forum. It is also a legal and judicial principle so well established that it hardly needs mention that an act of a Court should prejudice no-one.

 

8.     For the reasons stated above, we are of the clear view that the impugned order dated 03.06.2013 passed in Consumer Case No.16/2008 is not sustainable in law. It has caused prejudice to the Appellants and is vitiated and null and void ab initio, being in non-conformity with the aforementioned provisions of the Act as well as the canons of natural justice.

 

9.     We therefore allow the Appeal on this short ground without expressing any opinion on its merits and set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2013. Complaint Case No.16/2008 is restored to the file of the learned District Forum with directions that the same be re-heard and disposed of  afresh in accordance with law without being affected by the reasoning and conclusions contained in the order dated 03.06.2013. The learned District Forum is also advised to bear in mind the legal provisions stated above in future so that the Complainant / Opposite Parties before them are not inconvenienced and litigation prolonged, not to speak of the needless added burden on the Consumer Fora.

 

10.    The Appeal is disposed of with the directions made above. Return the learned District Forum case records. Return the instrument of Statutory Deposit for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to the learned Counsel for the Appellants under proper receipt.

 

 

 

SENIOR MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT