DISTRICT MANAGER, DEPTT. OF TELECOMMUNICATION, ERODE vs S. CHANDRA SEKAR

THIS is a Revision Petition against the order dated 4th February, 1992 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras.

IT is not necessary to give the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the present Respondent had filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Periyar District at Erode praying that the present Petitioner, who was the opposite party in the complaint, should not recover the telephone dues amounting To Rs. 2,600/- from him. The case was heard by the President of the Forum and two Members. The President passed an order on 22nd July, 1991. The portion of the order passed by the President, relevant for the purpose of this order, reads as follows: "6. Finally, this petition is dismissed. This order was dictated by me and taken in the shorthand and then got it typed, checked and announced in the open Court by me on 22.7.1991. (Adi 6th Projapatti Year 2022 Thiruvathwa Year). Sd/-K. Ponnusamy President, Distt. Consumer Forum Members 1. 2. members 1 &c 2 refused to sign. They have not written any order contrary to the order of the President. Sd /- K. Ponnusamy President, Distt. Consumer Forum"

As the petition had been dismissed by the President of the Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the aforementioned State Commission. When the file was received by that Commission it was noticed that two other Members had written dissenting "opinion" allowing the complaint. The relevant portion of the order of the State Commission reads as follows: "We are distressed to learn that the 2 members of the District Forum have written a contrary order, allowing the complaint and it is found in the file received from the District Forum. The note in the order passed by the President is obviously erroneous. The President ought to have accepted the majority opinion of the 2 members and the final order must have been in terms of the order of the majority. The order appealed against which has also been furnished to the parties is not the order of the District Forum. IT is the minority order of the President and has no value. The majority order passed by the two Members has allowed the application. We hold that the complaint filed by the complainant stands allowed. We direct the opposite party not to collect arrears in accordance with the majority opinion of the District Forum and to restore the connection forthwith. The appeal is ordered accordingly. We have heard the parties and gone through the records of the case. We are of the opinion that the order purported to have been written by the two Members cannot be said to be an order as it was neither pronounced in the open Court nor it was communicated to the parties. Strictly speaking it cannot be even termed as order. IT begins with the following words: "The opinion of the members in the above petition, Smt. Barbara Hydia, Sri. S. Radharkishnan". The ultimate para of that order reads as follows: When taken into account, the revised rent is to be collected by the from the date of detection of the error and its communication to the Petitioner. We are of the opinion that the has no authority to collect the revised rent from the date of installation."

This order only expresses an opinion of the two Members. IT cannot be said to be an order of binding nature. The Members have not said that the complaint of the petitioner should be allowed or partly allowed or dismissed meaning thereby that it is not an enforceable order. Further this opinion of the two Members does not even bear any date and it is not clear when this opinion was placed on the complaint file of the District Forum. At the time when that order was passed by the President, Sub-section (2) of Section 14 read as follows: "(2) Every order made by the District Forum under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by all the Members constituting it and, if there is any difference of opinion, the order of majority of the Members constituting it shall be the order of the District Forum."

In the light of the above provision the President of the District Forum ought not to have announced the order written by him alone till the other Members constituting the Forum had either agreed to that order or had written a dissenting order. Therefore, there is no legal order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission was in error in holding the "opinion" of the dissenting Members as the order of the majority. That "opinion" of the Members was neither announced in open Court nor communicated to the parties.

It would be out of place to mention here, that the State Commission had no jurisdiction even to admit the appeal. As is clear from the Act and the Rules framed there under by the various States, memo of appeal should be accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the lower forum. In the present case the copy of the order produced before the State Commission was of the President alone. Thus there was no proper appeal before the State Commission. It may further be mentioned here that the Telecom Department could not file any appeal before the State Commission as the "Opinion" of the majority was neither announced nor conveyed to the parties. In the light of the above observation as we set aside the order of the State Commission and remand the case to the District Forum to pass a proper order in terms of the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section 14 as it now stands after amendment. In case the President or any of the Member has since retired the District Forum will hear the case afresh and pass a proper order. We make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.