ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. TRIPTA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the opposite party who is petitioner before us. IT is submitted that the impugned order of the State Commission is non est as it does not bear the signature of the President of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. When this point was raised we requested Mr. Kishore Rawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner to examine the issue raised with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gulzari Lal Agarwal v. The Accounts Officer, III (1996) CPJ 12 (SC), where the Supreme Court in somewhat similar circumstances was considering the Consumer Protection Rules of the West Bengal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Mr. Rawat points out that the Consumer Protection Rules of West Bengal which were referred to in the judgment of the Supreme Court are different than the Consumer Protection Rules of Himachal Pradesh. He, therefore, sought to differentiate the judgment of the Supreme Court as not being applicable in this case. There could not be any dispute that the impugned order of the State Commission had been signed by only two Members. If we refer to the procedure applicable to State Commissions in the Consumer Protection Act Section 18 makes provisions of Sections 12, 13 and 14 applicable which sections pertain to procedure before District Forum. Sub-sections (2) and (2A) of Section 14 are relevant which we quote :