H.C.L. LTD. vs ANIL DUBEY

THIS appeal has arisen from order dated 14.2.1996 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Raise stet in Complaint No. 4/94.

THE facts giving rise to complaint filed by respondent, in the District Forum, are that respondent purchased a photocopier machine from the appellant on 15.5.1991 to run his business in the name of M/s. Palak Photocopier, Begumganj, Raisen. Respondent/complainant has purchased the photocopier after obtaining loan from the State Bank of India on 10.5.1991. Purchase of photocopier was made on terms and conditions mentioned in quotation of 15.5.1991. Complainant had also entered into service contract with the appellant on 2.1.1992 for providing free servicing. Complainant in his complaint before District Forum alleged that photocopier was defective and prayed for award of full price of photocopier machine and compensation Rs. 50,000/- and other expenses totalling Rs. 2,79,100/-. Appellant who was opposite party in District Forum denied all the allegations and stated that he had provided free servicing and also servicing, as per the new service contract. Appellant prayed for dismissal of complaint. The District Forum heard the parties and passed the order on 14.2.1996 which is subject matter of this appeal.

Appellant in his appeal has stated that this case was heard by the President and two Members of the District Forum but the order dated 14.2.1996 was signed and proclaimed by only two Members and the President had neither signed this order nor passed any other order. Appellant has averred that the order dated 14.2.1996 cannot be construed as ''final order'' within meaning of Section 14(2-A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which requires that every order made by the District Forum under Sub- section (1) of Section 14 shall be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. He further averred that it was a matter of record that proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4/94 were conducted by the learned President and Members of the District Forum, but the order under appeal was signed only by the Members of District Forum excluding the President. The order under appeal has not been signed by the President, who conducted the proceedings and hence is not a valid order within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

WE have heard the parties and have perused the record. WE have also given anxious thought to the point raised by appellant as narrated by us in para 4. Perusal of record reveals that averment made by appellant is correct and therefore, we are of the opinion that order of District Forum is not a valid order and deserves to be set aside. WE would like to observe that the President of District Forum has not passed a minority judgment disagreeing with other two Members and thus order under appeal cannot be termed as majority decision. Absence of signature of the President on the order is a serious legal lacuna. In the case of Prem Kishore Agrawal v. The Estate Officer Huda & Anr., III (1996) CPJ 181 (NC), the Hon''ble National Commission held a majority decision of two Members as valid because in that case the President of District Forum disagreed with the two Members and passed a minority judgment. Present case is different in that President of District Forum has not passed a minority judgment. WE are, therefore, of the opinion that appeal can be allowed only on this short point without going into the merits of the case. However, we were surprised to read the order passed by two Members. It is not a speaking order. Learned Members have not given any findings or any reasons for reaching the conclusions which they have drawn. Thus, there has been a patent miscarriage of justice. WE, therefore, feel that only a ''de novo'' trial will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, order that order dated 14.2.1996 of District Forum, Raisen is hereby set aside. We remand the case for a ''de novo'' trial in this case and further direct that both parties be given opportunity to adduce fresh evidence and the case be decided expeditiously within two months on merit. We direct both the parties to appear before District Forum, Raisen on 6.4.1998 to obtain a date for further hearing of this case by District Forum, Raisen. Both parties will ensure attendance in District Forum, Raisen. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send back the record received from District Forum immediately. Both parties be communicated this order within 3 days. Order set aside.