State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab National Bank & Another vs The Reshabh Wimpro Pvt. Ltd. on 2 January, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
REVISION PETITION NO. 32 / 2022
1. Punjab National Bank
Branch Ahmedpur, Haridwar District Haridwar
through its Authorised Signatory / Branch Manager
2. Circle Head Officer, Punjab National Bank
Branch Sector 4, BHEL, Ranipur, District Haridwar
through its Authorised Signatory / Branch Manager
Ahmedpur, Haridwar Branch
...... Revisionists
Versus
The Rishabh Winpro Pvt. Ltd.
having its office at Roorkee-Haridwar Road
Haridwar through its Director Sh. Rishabh Jain
...... Opposite Party
Sh. Gyaneshwar Thakral, Learned Counsel for the Revisionists
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President
Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Dated: 02/01/2023
ORDER
(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):
This revision petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 323 of 2022; The Rishabh Winpro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank and another, by which learned District Commission has rejected the application (Paper No. 9) moved by revisionist No. 1, who was opposite party No. 1 before the District Commission, with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, with a further direction that the above amount of costs shall not be recovered 2 from Punjab National Bank, rather the same shall be directly paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one week or deposit the same before the District Commission, failing which the recovery certificate shall be issued against the opposite parties to the consumer complaint (revisionists before us). It is also directed that by the next date fixed, i.e, 10.11.2022, the revisionists shall show-cause as to why action under Section 340 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 217 and 218 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, be not taken against them.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the record. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel no need to issue notice to the opposite party and find it a fit case to be decided at admission stage itself, without issuing notice to the opposite party and calling for its appearance.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionists submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is bad in law, inasmuch as the same has been passed by the Members of the District Commission, in contravention of the provisions of Section 36(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He further submitted that since the President of the District Commission was not a part of the Bench who has passed the impugned order, the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside on this very ground alone.
4. We find force in the submissions raised by learned counsel for the revisionists. Relevant provision of Section 36(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is reproduced below:
3"36. Proceedings before District Commission. - (1) Every proceeding before the District Commission shall be conducted by the President of that Commission and atleast one member thereof, sitting together:
Provided that where a member, for any reason, is unable to conduct a proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall continue the proceeding from the stage at which it was last heard by the previous member........................"
5. The perusal of impugned order passed by the District Commission shows that the same has been passed by the Members of the District Commission and the President of the District Commission was not a part of the proceedings. Section 36(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides that every proceeding before the District Commission shall be conducted by the President of that Commission and atleast one member thereof, sitting together and, as such, the impugned order passed by the District Commission is non-est in the eyes of law. The perusal of record makes it clear that the consumer complaint in question was filed before the District Commission under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the same came to be filed on 10.08.2022.
6. From the above quoted Section of the Act, it is amply clear that in every proceeding before the District Commission, the presence of President of the District Commission is must and the Members sitting together are not authorised to undertake the proceedings filed before the District Commission and decide the same. As is stated above, it is apparently clear that the President of the District Commission was not a part of the Bench, who has passed the impugned order and the impugned order was passed by the Members of the District Commission, in complete disregards of the above provisions of the 4 Act. Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Commission can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside on the above ground alone, without entering into the merits of the case and without even calling for appearance of the opposite party (original complainant). There shall be no gain saying that the impugned order passed by the District Commission being against the provisions of the Act, is a nullity and can not be enforced.
7. It would not be out of place to mention here that the impugned order was passed on the application 17.08.2022 moved by revisionist No. 1, thereby seeking for recall of order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the District Commission. The record shows that the order dated 10.08.2022 was passed by the President and both the Members of the District Commission, hence the application in question (though not maintainable, as the District Commission is not vested with the power to recall its order), should have been heard by the President and both the Members of the District Commission, who have passed the order dated 10.08.2022, but the same was not done.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, this revision petition succeeds and is to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside.
9. Revision Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the District Commission is set aside. Copy of the order be sent to the District Commission, with a direction that the order be put up before both the Members of the District Commission, who have passed the impugned order, with a note that they should strictly adhere to the provisions contained in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in future and refrain themselves from going against the provisions of the Act. No order as to costs.
510. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
(U.S. TOLIA) (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)
Member-II President
K