Pinky Roy vs Dr. Satish Midha & 5 Ors

The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 20.03.2015, passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeal, preferred by Opposite Party/Respondent No.1, has been allowed and the Complaint has been dismissed.

Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Learned Amicus Curiae, contended that the Appeal was heard by the Hon'ble President and Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member, but the impugned order, which has been passed, contains the signature of only the President and not of Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member. She invited our attention to the last but one paragraph of the impugned order to show that the Appeal was heard by the Bench of Hon'ble President and Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member. According to her, in view of the provisions of Section 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), every order made by the District Forum under Sub-Section (1) has to be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. In view of Section 18 of the Act, the provisions of Section 14(2A) of the Act also apply to the proceedings before the State Commission.

Further, the Learned Amicus Curiae, stated that the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of P.K. Jose Vs. Aby M. & Ors. [WP (C) No. 30939 of 2010 (N), decided on 25.02.2013, is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the High Court had only held that the matters can be decided by a Single Member Bench under the Act.

Mr. K.G. Sharma, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 herein, did not dispute this proposition. However, he submitted that in the impugned order, it has been specifically mentioned that the order was dictated with the consent of Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member, and, therefore, even if Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member, had not signed the order, the same will be an order passed by the State Commission, deciding the Appeal.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the Learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the Appeal was heard by the Division Bench, consisting of the President and Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member. However, the impugned order has been pronounced and signed by the President only. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member, had gone to Bombay for treatment of Cancer on urgent basis. Even if the order has been dictated with his consent and pronounced by the President, under law the said order is required to be signed by Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member, also. As the said order has been signed only by the President, it cannot be said to have been passed by the Division Bench, which had heard the matter.

It would have been open for Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member after coming from Bombay to pass an order, concurring with the order passed by the President or stating that the said order has been passed with his consent. No such thing has been brought on record, as Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member, who had heard the Appeal, along with the President, had not passed any separate order nor had signed the impugned order on a subsequent date.

That being the position, we are left with no other option but to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the State Commission. We order accordingly. The State Commission is directed to decide the Appeal afresh in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it. The parties shall not seek any adjournment in the matter.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Before parting, we record our Appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Learned Amicus Curiae in the disposal of the case. The Office is directed to pay a sum of ₹25,000/- to the Learned Amicus Curiae.