Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President &
Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member
KRISHAN DAS—Appellant
versus
M.S. TRADERS—Respondent
A/1629/SC of 1994—Decided on 28.4.1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. M.H. Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. D.C. Agrawal, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14(2A) - Impugned order passed by District Forum signed by President alone - Order is in violation of provision of Section 14(2A) of the Act - No reason or facts were narrated in order - Order is liable to, be set aside. (Paras 2 to 4)
Result : Appeal allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
Two members including the President of District Forum must participate in the proceedings and sign the order passed by it.
Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President— Learned Counsel Mr. M.H. Khan for appellant and Mr. D.C. Agrawal for opposite party are present.
2. This is an appeal against the order dated 8.6.1994 passed by District Forum, Shahjanpur in Complaint Case No. 86/94. It is not necessary to mention the facts of the case because the appeal is liable to be allowed. According to learned Counsel for appellant this order has been signed by the President alone. A perusal of Section 14, Sub-clause (2A) of the Consumer Protection Act lays down that every order made by District Forum, under this clause, shall be signed by its President and a Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. Thus, a perusal of this section goes to show that two Members including the President should have participated in the proceedings and should have signed it. But as the impugned order is signed by the President only, hence, it is in violation of the provision of Section 14, Sub-clause (2A) of the above Act. Moreover, no reason for pursuing the order, has been given and the facts of the case have also not been narrated. The order passed by the learned District Forum runs as under :
“Heard the three parties not permissible in the Act.
Rejected.”
3. Thus, we find that the order is a short order, giving no reasoning as to what made the learned District Forum to arrive at such a decision. The learned District Forum came to the conclusion that the case is not maintainable but had not given any reasoning and facts for arriving at this conclusion.
4. Learned Counsel for appellant argued that the appellant was not given an opportunity of hearing. The learned District Forum should give an opportunity to the parties including the appellant and, thereafter to decide the case after considering the evidence of the case.
5. The order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 8.6.1994 passed by District Forum is set aside. Let a copy of this order be sent to District Forum concerned.
Parties to appear there on 31.5.1999.
Let the copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rule.
Appeal allowed.
_
