ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., WASHIM vs RAJESHKUMAR HIRALAL BAJAJ

THIS Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 17th October, 1994 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay in Appeal No. 462/94 by which it set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Akola. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint filed by the present Respondent, Rejeshkumar Hiralal Bajaj. The present Petitioner, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was Opposite Party in complaint. Feeling aggrieved against that order the Complainant Rajeshkumar Hiralal Bajaj filed appeal in the State Commission. It accepted the appeal and ordered the Insurance Company to settle the claim for the amount of Rs. 1,47,500/- within 30 days from the receipt of the order and shall pay the same amount to the appellant within 30 days failing which the amount was to carry out interest at 18 per cent per annum. The Insurance Company has come up before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.

IT is not necessary for us to state the facts of the case in detail because the impugned order is liable to be set aside simply on the ground that the State Commission has acted with material irregularity in passing the impugned order. The appeal came up before the State commission for hearing on 11th August, 1994 on which date the Advocate for the Complainant-appellant was present, but none was present for the Insurance Company. The President of the State Commission sitting singly remarked that the appellant has filed note of argument and closed the appeal reserving for orders. Final order dated 7th October, 1994 is, of course, signed by the President and one Member of the State Commission. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Insurance Company contended that the order dated 11th August, 1994 is bad in the eye of law as it was passed by the President of the State Commission sitting singly. He placed reliance upon Section 14(2A).of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 relevant part of which reads as follows : "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 proceedings....."

THE provisions of Sections 12,13 and 14 have been made applicable to the proceedings before the State Commission by Section 18 of the Act. In view of the said provisions every order made by the State Commission is to be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. As noticed above, the order dated 11th August, 1989 is not signed by any Member of the Commission. Though the final order is signed by one Member of the State Commission and the President, but the said Member did not participate in the proceedings held on 11th August, 1994 by which the case was closed for orders after taking on record note of arguments filed by the appellant. Thus, the order dated 11th August, 1994 cannot be sustained and as a result the subsequent final order also falls.

LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent placed reliance upon Section 29-A of the Act which reads as follows : "No act or proceeding of 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."

Relying upon this Section, the Counsel for Respondent argued that by the time order dated 11th August, 1994 was passed no Member had been appointed to the State Commission and hence, by reason of no vacancy amongst the members or defect in constitution of the Commission the order passed by the President sitting singly is not invalid. We are of the opinion that Section 29-A has no application to the facts of the present case. Section 29-A only speaks about the vacancy amongst the Members of the State Commission or defect in its constitution, but, it does not override the provisions of Section 14(2A) of the Act. We have to give a harmonious construction to the two provisions. According to us ; Section 29-A only means that if instead of two [ there is only one member at the time of the proceedings conducted by the Commission in the presence of the President then, proceedings will not be invalidated. But, it does not empower the President or Member to act singly while conducting the proceedings under the Act. So much so that in the absence of the President, the two Members of the Commission or any one of them is debarred from conducting the proceedings in view of Section 14(2A).

FOR the reasons given above, we accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the orders dated 1lth August, 1994 and 7th October, 1994 passed by the State Commission and remand the case to the State Commission which will decide the appeal on merits in accordance with provisions of law. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.