LAWS(TNCDRC)-2009-9-15

R. MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. MANAGER CANARA BANK, NRI BRANCH

Decided On September 08, 2009
R. MUTHUKRISHNAN Appellant
V/S
The Manager Canara Bank, NRI Branch, Chennai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner as complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) for certain relief, which we are not concerned at present. In the said Forum, as reported, there is only one member, though the Act contemplates two members to preside over alongwith the President of the District Forum.

(2.) The petitioner / Complainant filed this application seeking transfer of his case in CC No.122/2007 from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) to the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) since the District Forum, Chennai (North) is having two members and the Forum is functioning with full corum.

(3.) The petitioner in person submitted that under Sub Sec.(1) of Section 10 of the Act, the Forum should consist of a President and two other members to decide the case, but the District Forum, Chennai (South) does consist of a President and one Member only and in this view they cannot constitute the Forum eventually satisfying the requirement of the Act and in this view the case should be transferred to District Forum, Chennai (North), where there are two members alongwith the President to decide the matter expeditiously. The submission of the petitioner though appears to be some what prima-facie arguable, since there is no specific clause empowering the President of the District Forum to constitute a bench with one member, there is a fallacy in the argument is evident from the careful reading of Rule 4 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Rules, 1988, read with Sec.14(2-A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is covered by precedent. Under Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act it is specifically stated that a proceedings could be conducted by the President of the District Forum alongwith one member and therefore attempt made by the petitioner to say that unless both members are available, the Forum cannot function is not worthy of consideration when we read Sec.14 of the Act, which reads as follows: Every proceedings referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and atleast one member thereof sitting together.