JOSE Vs. ABY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legality of an order passed by the Judicial Member of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("the Commission" for short), awarding compensation in a complaint filed by the first respondent is the question that is raised in this Writ Petition. Case of the petitioner is that the first respondent filed O.P. No. 25/2003 before the Commission and that the case was heard by a Bench comprising of 3 members and orders were reserved. Thereafter, he received Ext. P1, an order passed by a Judicial Member of the Commission. Petitioner says that he objected to the Execution Application filed for the execution of Ext. P1, but his objections were overruled by Ext. P4 order of the Commission. Thereupon, this Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext. P1 and all consequential proceedings, including the revenue recovery proceedings that were initiated for recovering the amount awarded.

(2.) The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) and the Rules framed thereunder, complaints filed before the Commission are to be dealt with by a Bench consisting of at least two members. To substantiate this contention, reliance was placed on Sections 12 to 14 and S. 18 of the Act. On this basis, he contended that the impugned order rendered by the Judicial Member is illegal.

(3.) I heard the counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made.