BIHARILAL SHARMA Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied with the order dated 12.11.90, passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No.9/90, the complainant before it has filed this appeal under S.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein ). By the impugned order, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. In view of the short point involved in this appeal, it is not necessary to recount the facts leading to this appeal in detail.

(2.) The complainant Beharilal filed the complaint praying that agricultural electric Connection No.70298 which was disconnected on 17.6.88 may be restored and the bills which have been prepared from May, 1987 at the commercial rate may be ordered to be amended by giving a direction to the opposite party to charge agricultural rate i. e.33 paise per unit. Compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- was also claimed. The opposite parties filed the version of the case on July 31,1990. Thereafter, 6.9.90,15.10.90 and 7.11.90 were fixed for arguments. It appears from the proceedings dated 7.11.90 that arguments were heard, and the complaint was posted for orders on 12.11.90. The order-sheet dated 7.11.90 when the arguments were heard, is signed by the President alone. The presence of the members is not mentioned. There is nothing in the order-sheet to indicate that they were party to the proceedings when the arguments were heard. Their signatures do not appear in the order-sheet dated 7.11.90. The impugned order dated 12.11.90 was passed by the President and one member. We are concerned with the validity of the order. The fact that the arguments were heard by the President and the order was passed by the President and one member of the District Forum was brought to the notice of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and it was put to him whether in this circumstances, the order passed by the District Forum is valid and so can it be sustained? This was done as no specific ground was taken in the memo of appeal by the appellant.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. G. C. Garg, Advocate for the respondents. The point directly arose before us in R. S. E. B. , Jaipur V/s. Kanchan Singh Verma (Appeal No.16/89 decided on July 7,1989 ). In that case, the order appealed against was signed by the President alone and a contention was raised on behalf of the R. S. E. B. , Jaipur that the order passed is invalid. Provisions of S.14 of the Act, Rules 4 (5) and 3 (8) of the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987 were considered. Thereafter, it was observed as under : "bearing in mind the above principles of interpretation and the object and intendment of the legislation in promulgating the Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment we will determine validity or otherwise of the order. There is no provision for fixing the quorum, if one member out of the three members including the President is unable to attend a sitting of the District Forum, the orders affecting the rights of the parties (complainant and opposite party) passed would not be rendered invalid as majority of members would constitute quorum for a sitting of the District Forum. We are of opinion that any order of the District Forum affecting the rights of the parties i. e. the complainant and opposite party which is passed during the pendency of the complaint should be announced and signed by at least two members of the District Forum constituting the Bench, for, this is permissible under the provisions of Rule 4 (5) and Rule 3 (8) of the Rules as two members atleast constitute the Bench of the District Forum. In this case, as stated above, the order is signed by one member, viz. the President of the District Forum alone and there is nothing in the order to show that the other members or member participated in the proceedings and concurred in the order passed by the President of District Forum. The District Forum, while passing the order under appeal has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or at any rate with material irregularity when the interlocutory order dated March 28,1989 was passed by the single member (President) and, therefore, it has to be set aside. "