Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President ––– This appeal came up for hearing on November 27, 1989. While hearing the arguments of the appellant, we pointed out to the parties that Mr. Manoharsinhji Jadeja, who is appointed as one of the Members of the State Commission, is not attending the Commission because he has not accepted the appointment. In these circumstances we raised a question whether the Commission can hear and decide a complaint or an appeal in absence of the third Member. We asked the parties and the intervener to address us on this point though nobody on behalf of the respondents was appearing.

2. The respondents had not appeared before the District Forum also and this being an important question of law, we considered it proper to adjourn the matter to give one more chance to the respondents as well as the appellant and the intervener to prepare them on the question of law raised by us. The matter was, therefore, adjourned to December 14,1989. We also decided to issue notice to the Government to hear the Government’s view on this preliminary point since the issue was an issue of jurisdiction.

3. On December 14,1989, Mr. R.K. Solanki, Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supplies Department, appeared on behalf of the Government and gave an application praying for adjournment since the Department had referred the question to the Legal Department of the Government for their opinion which was not received by them. Similarly, one of the respondents also appeared and he also asked for adjournment. Mr. I.J. Desai, the appellant, objected to granting of time since he had come second time to argue the matter. In the circumstances we heard the arguments of Mr. Desai on the preliminary point as well as on the merits of the matter. The appellant had also given application for allowing him production of additional documents. The arguments of the appellant as well as the intervener were heard and the case was adjourned for hearing arguments of the Government and the respondents. In the order passed on the application for adjournment filed on behalf of the Government, it was clearly stated : “sufficient time was at the disposal of the Government to consider a very small legal point to considering the importance of the issue and that the Commission is not able to function and decide the cases without deciding this issue, any time taken by the Government will delay the proceedings, we are therefore, constrained to grant time and adjourn me matter on 27.12.1989 observing that no further adjournment shall in any case be granted either to the Government or any of the parties of which the parties may take note of.

4. Today, i.e. on December 27,1989, neither the officer of the Government nor the Government pleader has appeared to make any submission though the Government had taken time for that purpose. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that if the vacancy is created on account of unwillingness to be appointed by the Member, the two Members (including the President) can hear and decide the pending cases. He also requested that the preliminary point may first be decided. We, therefore, thought fit to decide the preliminary issue first.

5. The preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) states that this is an Act to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consuemers’ disputes and for matters connected therewith. The Act has come into force on December 24,1986 which amongst other things provides a cheap, speedy and efficacious remedy to the consumers in respect of defective goods as well as deficiency in service. Service includes banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other agency, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying a news or other information. In short service