B.N. Sinha, President - All these appeals ate directed against orders by the District Forum, Samastipur in different cases on different dates. The appellant in these appeals is M/s. Chandra Cold Storage - Opposite Party before the District Forum and the respondents in all these appeals were the complainants before the District Forum. All these appeals involve identical question of law and therefore they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Appeal No. 9/94 is directed against order dated 1.12.1993 in Complaint Case No.116 of 93, Appeal No. 10/94 is directed against order; dated 8.12.1993 in Complaint Case No. 93/93, Appeal 11/94 is directed against order dated 1.12.1993 in Case No.114 of 93, Appeal 12/94 is directed against order dated 8:12.1993 in Case No. 94/93, Appeal 13(94 is directed against order. dated 1.12.1993 passed in Case No. 171192, Appeal 14/94 is directed against order dated 3.12.1993 passed in Case No. 120/93, Appeal 15/94 is directed against order dated 18.10.1993 passed in Case No. 95 of93 and Appeal 16/94 is directed against order dated 6.12.1993 passed in Case No. 121 of 93.

3. It may be noticed that all these appeals have been filed after the period of thirty days from the date of the respective impugned orders and therefore applications under Rule 8(4) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules have been filed in all these appeals by the appellant. We need not record our finding on this issue because we find that the impugned orders in all these appeals can not be sustained for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act(hereinafter called the Act). This section after its amendment in 1991 requires that every proceeding referred to under section 14(1) of the Act has to be conducted by the President and at least one Member sitting together and every order passed by the District Forum in such proceeding shall be signed by the President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceeding Section 14(1), I of the Act refers to the proceeding under section 13 of the Act. Hence the proceeding under section 13 of the Act has to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section• 14(2) of the Act. It appears from the order-sheets of these cases before the District Forum that the proceeding in these cases were conducted by the President of the District Forum alone on all the dates fixed since the filing of the complaints to the date on which parties were heard and orders passed in those proceedings have been signed by the President only. It appears that on the dates fixed for the hearing in the cases the parties were heard by the President sitting alone and the cases were fixed for orders. Of course the impugned orders in these cases bear the signatures of the President and the two Members of the District Forum. But it does not appear from the order sheets of these cases that the two Members whose signatures appears on the impugned order ever participated in conducting the proceeding along with the President and heard the parties. Thus there has been contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act and violation of the principles of natural justice. On these grounds alone the impugned orders in all these cases are fit to be set aside.

4. Before we conclude we would like to observe that there has been non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act also as the cases have been decided without evidence.

5. In the result all these appeals are al-: lowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The cases, however, are being remanded to the District Forum for disposal in accordance with the provisions of the Act expeditiously on priority basis.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the cases, however, there is no order as to cost.

Cases remanded to District Forum.