AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this revision, the petitioner/opposite party assails the order of the State Commission dated 14.3.2002 dismissing Appeal No. 14 of 2001 and affirming the order of District Forum dated 30.4.2001 whereby complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed with certain directions. One of the grounds taken in revision petition which was also strenuously pressed before us, was that the order passed by District Forum dated 30.4.2001 was not signed by the President as required by Section 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act. Photostat certified copy of order of District Forum would show that it is not signed by the President of the Forum. Sub-section (2A) of Section 14 provides that every order made by District Forum shall be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. Since the order dated 30.4.2001 is not signed by the President of the District Forum, it is bad in law and the revision, thus, deserves to be allowed and case remanded back to the District Forum for deciding afresh on merits.
ACCORDINGLY, the revision petition is accepted and orders dated 30.4.2001/14.3.2002 are set aside and case remanded to the District Forum for being decided afresh on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum for direction on 21.4.2003. Revision Petition allowed.