National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Krishna Devi And Anr. vs Ashok Kumar And Anr. on 29 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: 3(2006)CPJ196(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This order will govern the disposal of Revision Petition Nos. 989/99,1008/99,1009/ 99,1084/99,1087/99,1088/99,1089/99,1090/ 99,1091/99,1092/99,1095/99,1096/99,1097/ 99, 1146/1999, 1287/99 and 1415/99 which arise of identical orders dated 10.12.1997 of H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dismissing appeals against the orders of District Forum in complaints filed by respondent No. 1 in each of these cases.
2. Orders dated 10.12.1997 were passed by two members of the State Commission without junction of the President.
3. Sole submission advanced by Mr. Imran Khan for petitioners is that the President of the State Commission was not in position when the orders under challenge were passed by two members of the State Commission. Under Sub-sections (2) and (2A) of Section 14 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act') two members without junction of the President could not have validly passed the orders dated 10.12.1997. On the other hand, relying on the decision in Gulzari Lal Aggarwal v. Accounts Officer, III ; Mr. Ashok Kashyap for respondent No. 1 has supported the order of State Commission. Sub-sections (2) and (2A) of Section 14, Sections 18 and 29A which are also material, are reproduced below:
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.
(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....
18. The provisions of Sections 12, 13 and 14 and the rules made thereunder for the disposal of complaints by the District Forum shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by the State Commission.
29A. No act or proceeding of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy amongst its members or any defect in the constitution thereof.
4. In exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the said Act the Government of Himachal Pradesh have made the Rules which came into force i.e. 14.5.1988. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 14 of these Rules provides as under:
No act or proceedings of the State Commission shall be invalid by the reason only of the existence of any vacancy among its President or members or any defect in the constitution there.
5. Paras 17, 18, 19 and 20 (at pages 595 and 596 of the report) in Gulzari Lal's case (supra) read thus:
17. After giving careful thought to the rival contentions raised before us, we are of the considered opinion that the relevant provisions which we have quoted herein above will have to be construed harmoniously to promote the cause of the consumers under the Act. As indicated earlier, the definition of member includes Sub-Section (2) of Section 14 read with Section 18 requires that every proceeding referred to under Sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum/State Commission and at least one member thereof sitting together. Sub-section (2-A) is consequential in the sense that every order made by the State Commission under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the proceeding. The procedure applicable to the District Forum is made applicable to the State Commission vide Section 28 with such modifications as may be necessary. Plain reading of Sub-sections (2) and (2-A) of Section 14 may support the view taken by the National Commission but if these provisions are read with Section 29-A of the Act and Sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6, it would be quite clear that it could never be the intention of the Legislature to stall or render the State Commission non-functional in the absence of the President either having not been appointed in time due to some valid reasons or if the President is on leave due to certain reasons beyond his control. Sub-Sections (2) and (2A) of Section 14 and Section 18-A of the Act were brought into force with effect from 18.6.93 whereas Section 29-A was made applicable from 15.6.1991. The Rules of 1987 were brought into force immediately. The complaint before the District Forum by the appellant was filed on 14.10.93. Therefore, 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 (2-A) of Section 14 read with Sub-rules (9) and (10) is that as and when the President of the State Commission is functional, he along with at least 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 senior-most (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 nonfunctional 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).
18. The West Bengal Government has framed the Rules in the year 1987 and the object of Sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 7 appears to us to keep the State Commission functional in the absence of the President. From the impugned order it appears that the attention of the National Commission was not drawn to Sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 was never challenged. It is made clear that the view which we have taken in this appeal is on the premise that there is no challenge to the validity of the rules and they hold the field.
19. Having heard 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.
20. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the National Commission committed an error in holding that order passed by the members of the State Commission without the junction of the President is 'illegal and void'. Impugned order to that extent is set aside.
6. Though Rules of 1988 framed by Himachal Pradesh do not have the provision similar to Rules (9) and (10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 still said Rule (6) of Rule 14 provides for any act or proceedings of the State Commission not to be invalid for reason of existence of any vacancy of the President. In this backdrop, applying the ratio in Gulzari Lal's case (supra), the orders passed by two members without junction of the President cannot be said to be bad in law. Submission referred to above advanced by Mr. Khan is repelled being without any merit.
7. Resultantly, the revision petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000 to each of respondent No. 1/complainants.