Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
Muzammil Khan —Petitioner
versus
Sovereign Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No.1067 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 16/12/2015 in Appeal No. 5/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka)
Decided on 16.11.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AR
For the Respondent:Mr. Dilip Singh, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
If office of President of District Forum is vacant, Members of District Forum shall definitely be entitled to perform duties of President.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 14(2A), 16(1B)(ii), 20(1A)(ii) and 22D—Consumer—Quorum—In case of State Commission and National Commission, the Bench could consist of one or more Members, as constituted by President of that Commission—However, situation is different in case of District Forum because proceedings have to be conducted by President himself, alongwith one or more Members—If office of President of District Forum is vacant, Members of District Forum shall definitely be entitled to perform duties of President—Presently, President of District Forum was very much in position and proceedings could be conducted by President only alongwith one or two Members—Direction given by State Commission in impugned order that other two Members of District Forum should conduct proceedings is not in accordance with law—Impugned order passed by State Commission set aside—In view of fact that OPs had lost faith in the Forum, it will be in interest of justice to transfer cases to another District Forum of competent jurisdiction. (Paras 7 to 10)
Result: Review Petition allowed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 17.12.2015, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) vide which, consumer complaint No. 1859/2013, and other connected 41 cases were ordered to be decided by two members of the IIIrd Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the President of the said Forum was directed to recuse himself from proceedings in the said cases.
2. In consumer complaint No. 1859/2013 and other cases, it was alleged by the complainants that the OP developer M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited failed to deliver the flats in question in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, despite payment of the entire amount of money to the said developer. The complainants initiated proceedings against the builders, alleging deficiency in service on their part. However, when the parties concluded their arguments before the District Forum and the matter was fixed for final orders on 16.12.2015, the OP Builder filed a transfer application before the State Commission, alleging that certain comments made by the President during hearing, had created an impression in the mind of the OPs that the President was biased against them. The State Commission vide order dated 16.12.2015 dismissed the application seeking transfer of the cases. However, on 17.12.2015, the State Commission passed another order, in which they stated as follows:-
“Thus, instead of transferring entire cases to other forum as other two members of the District Forum have already heard the arguments, it is proper that members as well write the judgement and President be directed to recuse himself from proceedings in the said cases. Thus, III Addl. District Forum is directed accordingly. “
3. The petitioner has challenged the said order, saying that under section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the proceedings before the District Forum had necessarily to be conducted by the President of such Forum and at least one Member thereof, sitting together. Under section 14(2A), any order made by the District Forum, had to be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. It was, therefore, the mandate of law that two Members of the District Forum without involvement of the President, could not conduct the proceedings in question. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, bad in the eyes of law.
4. The petitioners have stated that direction should be issued to the President and Member of the District Forum to discharge their official duties by pronouncing the final orders.
5. The OP/respondent builder have, however, taken the plea that they had lost faith in the President of the District Forum and hence, the case should not be decided by him.
6. The main point for consideration in the matter is whether the order passed by the State Commission, directing two Members of the District Forum minus the President, was in accordance with law or not. In this regard, Section 14(2) and Section 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are reproduced as under:-
“14(2) 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:
Proviso……………………………….
14 (2A) Every order made by the District Forum under sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the proceeding:
Proviso……………………………….”
7. It is clear from a perusal of the above provisions that the proceedings under section 13 of the Act in the case of District Forum have to be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one more member sitting together. However, in the case of the National Commission, it has been provided under section 20(1A)(ii) that a
