ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJESHKUMAR HIRALAL BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 17th October, 1994 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay in Appeal No. 462/94 by which it set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Akola. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint filed by the present Respondent, Rejeshkumar Hiralal Bajaj. The present Petitioner, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was Opposite Party in complaint. Feeling aggrieved against that order the Complainant Rajeshkumar Hiralal Bajaj filed appeal in the State Commission. It accepted the appeal and ordered the Insurance Company to settle the claim for the amount of Rs. 1,47,500/- within 30 days from the receipt of the order and shall pay the same amount to the appellant within 30 days failing which the amount was to carry out interest at 18 per cent per annum. The Insurance Company has come up before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.

(2.) IT is not necessary for us to state the facts of the case in detail because the impugned order is liable to be set aside simply on the ground that the State Commission has acted with material irregularity in passing the impugned order. The appeal came up before the State commission for hearing on 11th August, 1994 on which date the Advocate for the Complainant-appellant was present, but none was present for the Insurance Company. The President of the State Commission sitting singly remarked that the appellant has filed note of argument and closed the appeal reserving for orders. Final order dated 7th October, 1994 is, of course, signed by the President and one Member of the State Commission.

(3.) THE provisions of Sections 12,13 and 14 have been made applicable to the proceedings before the State Commission by Section 18 of the Act. In view of the said provisions every order made by the State Commission is to be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. As noticed above, the order dated 11th August, 1989 is not signed by any Member of the Commission. Though the final order is signed by one Member of the State Commission and the President, but the said Member did not participate in the proceedings held on 11th August, 1994 by which the case was closed for orders after taking on record note of arguments filed by the appellant. Thus, the order dated 11th August, 1994 cannot be sustained and as a result the subsequent final order also falls.