Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh & S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
GULZARI LAL AGARWAL—Appellant
versus
THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER—Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1996—Decided on 25.9.1996
Held: All these amended provisions were very much brought into force when the complaint was filed. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 is a presumptuous provision where the President of the State Commission is functional but it would not be correct to say that if the President of the State Commission is non-functional because of one or the other reason, the State Commission would stop its functioning and wait till the President is appointed. In order to avoid such a situation, the State Government has framed the Rules and sub-rules (9) and (10) quoted hereinabove unmistakably provide answer to such a situation as in the present case. The only harmonious construction that could be given to sub-sections (2) and (2A) of Section 14 read with sub-rules (9) and (10) is that as and when the President of the State Commission is functional, he alongwith atleast one Member sitting together shall conduct the proceeding but where the President being non-functional, sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 will govern the proceedings. Sub-rule (9) provides that where any such vacancy occurs in the office of the President of the State Commission, the seniormost (in order of appointment) member holding office for the time being, shall discharge the function· of the President until a person is appointed to fill such vacancy. This sub-rule is made with a view to make the State Commission functional in the absence of the President and not to allow the State Commission to render non-functional for want of the president. It is well settled that every provision in the Act needs to be construed harmoniously with a view to promote the object and spirit of the Act but while doing so, no violence would be done to the plain language used in the section. It is this principle that needs to be made applicable while construing the provision of sub-sections (2) and (2A) of Section 14 read with sub-rules (9) and (10), (Para 7) Further held: Having regard to the composition of the District Forum and the State Commission, it is more appropriate and desirable to make the appointment of the President of the District Forum and the State Commission without any delay since the complaints under the Act involved fairly large stakes which require a judicial approach. (Para 19) (ii) CONSUMER DISPUTES-Consumer Forum-Interim. Orders - Whether Consumer Forum has jurisdiction or power to pass any interim order pending disposal of original complaint?--(No)-National Commission was right in applying law laid down by this Court in Morgan Stanley case, 1994 (II) CPJ 7 (sq. (Para 21)
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
Order passed by the two members of the West Bengal State Commission without the junction of the President is not illegal and void.
S.P. Kurdukar, J. — This appeal is directed against the order dated May 17,1995, in Revision Petition No. 393/94 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘National Commission’). It is not disputed that at the relevant time when the order dated 21.1.94 was passed by the State Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) was not having the President since he had retired. No new President was appointed on the said State Commission. A complaint was filed by the appellant herein before the District Forum, Bankura as regards inflated telephone bills. A prayer was made in the said complaint that the respondent herein be directed not to disconnect the telephone connection. An order was made by the District Forum in favour of the appellant directing the respondent not to disconnect the telephone connection and maintain the telephone line on condition that the appellant deposits a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. The appellant accordingly complied with the said order. It appears that despite this order, the telephone connection of the appellant was disconnected on 30.11.93. The appellant thereafter moved an application for restoration and it is common premise that on 25.5.94, the telephone connection was restored. The complaint as regards the excessive bill of Rs. 13,896/- is still pending.
2. The respondent not being satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum preferred an appeal to the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 21.1.94 dismissed the said appeal, holding that the order passed by the District Forum was in consonance with the circular dated 15.10.92 issued by the Telephone Department. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the respondent preferred revision petition under Section 21 of the Act before the National Commission. The National Commission after hearing the parties vide its impugned order dated May 17, 1995 allowed the revision petition primarily on the ground of jurisdiction. The National Commission has held as under :
“The impugned order passed by the State Commission, West Bengal has to be held illegal and void on the ground that the said order has been passed only by two Members of the State Commission without the junction of the President, which is manifestly contrary to mandatory provisions contained in Section 14(2A) read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said order of the State Commission is hereby set aside. We also set aside the interlocutory orders dated October 14, 1993 (Annexure VB’) and October 19,1993 (Annexure ‘C’) passed by the District Forum, Bankura as being totally devoid of jurisdiction in the light of the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanely Mutual Fund v. Kartik Das, II (1994) CPJ 7 (SC), where it has been categorically laid down that a Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction or power to pass any interim order pending disposal of an original complaint filed before it”.
3. It is this order passed by the National Commission which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.
4. Before we deal with the rival contentions raised before us, it would be appropriate to set out relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Clause (jj) of Section 2 defines : Member :—
“member” includes the President and a Member of the National Commission or a State Commission or a District Forum, as the case may be.”
5. Section 9 in Chapter III refers to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies and the relevant provisions are as under :—
9. “Establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies:—
There shall be established for the purposes of this Act, the following agencies, namely:
(a) xxxx xxxx xxxxx
(b) A consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to be known as the “State Commission” established by the State Government in the State by notification; and
(c) xxxx xxxx xxxxx
6. Section 13 prescribes the procedure to be followed on rece
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
