S.D.O.(ELECTRICITY) Vs. J.N.BAROWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, dated 1.6.2000, as a result of which the complaint of the respondent has been accepted to the extent that the cancellation of the electricity bills in respect of his premises dated 3.6.1997 and 10.7.1997 for Rs. 6,677/ - and Rs. 15,862/ - respectively has been ordered alongwith letter dated 23.4.1998. Additionally, the appellants before us have been burdened with the litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000/ -.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we have examined the record. At the outset, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the complaint was heard by the President of the learned District Forum, Shimla, sitting single on 31.5.2000 and the matter was fixed for orders on 1.6.2000, on which dated the impugned order was passed. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned Counsel, we have perused the original record ourselves and we find that the arguments raised by him stands substantiated. The order dated 31.5.2000 is purported to have been signed by the then President of the District Forum, Shimla and it reads as follows: - "Heard. For orders on 1.6.2000" Subsequently, the order dated 1.6.2000 records as follows: - "Order announced separately. The file after due completion be consigned to record room". It is again purported to be signed only by the President through the word "Member" is also typed below, the designation of the President, without there being any signatures of either Member on the same. However, strangely enough, the main order which is the subject matter of this appeal is purported to have been signed by all the three, namely, the President and the two Members.

(3.) In the above context, our attention has been drawn to the provisions of Section 14 Sub Section -2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter to be called the Act1, which provides that "Every proceeding referred to in sub -section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together". Insofar as the Sub -section (1) of Section 14 is concerned, it relates to the finding of the District Forum after hearing of the complaint, the procedure for which is provided by Section 13 of the Act. The only interpretation possible of Section 14(2) of the Act ibid is that quorum of the proceedings of the District Forum is the presence of the President of the said Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together (emphasis supplied). In this context also the word , shall occurring in the said provision mandates that the proceedings should be conducted by the President alongwith at least one out of two members of the District Forum. This is precisely what has been observed in the breach in the present case in the circumstances referred to above.