MUZAMMIL KHAN Vs. SOVEREIGN DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 17.12.2015, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') vide which, consumer complaint No. 1859/2013, and other connected 41 cases were ordered to be decided by two members of the III rd Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the President of the said Forum was directed to recuse himself from proceedings in the said cases.

(2.) In consumer complaint No. 1859/2013 and other cases, it was alleged by the complainants that the OP developer M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited failed to deliver the flats in question in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, despite payment of the entire amount of money to the said developer. The complainants initiated proceedings against the builders, alleging deficiency in service on their part. However, when the parties concluded their arguments before the District Forum and the matter was fixed for final orders on 16.12.2015, the OP Builder filed a transfer application before the State Commission, alleging that certain comments made by the President during hearing, had created an impression in the mind of the OPs that the President was biased against them. The State Commission vide order dated 16.12.2015 dismissed the application seeking transfer of the cases. However, on 17.12.2015, the State Commission passed another order, in which they stated as follows:-

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the said order, saying that under section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the proceedings before the District Forum had necessarily to be conducted by the President of such Forum and at least one Member thereof, sitting together. Under section 14(2A), any order made by the District Forum, had to be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. It was, therefore, the mandate of law that two Members of the District Forum without involvement of the President, could not conduct the proceedings in question. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, bad in the eyes of law.