AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD Mr. A. K. Srivastava learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
NONE is present on behalf of the respondants although notices were despatched to them. The impugnd order dated 26. 3. 1993 reads as follows: "rejected as the Arbitration Act is not applicable. "
This order has been challenged on the two fold ground-the first being that it is a non-reasoned order and subsequently that it was signed only by the President and not by any Member of the District Consumer Forum. The two fold contention seems to be sustainable. It is different that an arbitration clause subsisting in an agreement may not cause any impediment in disposal of the complaint pending in the District Consumer Forum. Therefore, a complaint filed before the District Consumer Forum can very well be decided on merit provided the deficiency in service is established. In the case in hand the two complainants filed their complaint to recover the money they had deposited with the appellants and subsequently pleaded deficiency in service. The District Consumer Forum rejected the plea of the appellants for a reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator. May be that this conclusion was justifiable and sustainable yet the order should have been reasoned and it should have been pronounced by two Members, including the President of the District Consumer Forum. It is not disclosed as to whether the posts of the Members were lying vacant but the fact remains that none of the other Member had signed this order. Obviously thus the order is in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act which postulates that every proceedings should be conducted by the President and at least one Member.
HAVING regard to what has been stated above we are of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is set aside. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the District Consumer Forum concerned for expediting the hearing of the original complaint and if possible the same be finally disposed of within three months from the date a copy of this judgment is served. Appeal allowed.