PINKY ROY Vs. SATISH MIDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 20.03.2015, passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeal, preferred by Opposite Party/Respondent No.1, has been allowed and the Complaint has been dismissed.

(2.) Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Learned Amicus Curiae, contended that the Appeal was heard by the Hon ble President and Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member, but the impugned order, which has been passed, contains the signature of only the President and not of Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member. She invited our attention to the last but one paragraph of the impugned order to show that the Appeal was heard by the Bench of Hon ble President and Mr. Ajit Kumar, Member. According to her, in view of the provisions of Section 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), every order made by the District Forum under Sub-Section (1) has to be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. In view of Section 18 of the Act, the provisions of Section 14(2A) of the Act also apply to the proceedings before the State Commission.

(3.) Further, the Learned Amicus Curiae, stated that the decision of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of P.K. Jose Vs. Aby M. & Ors. [WP (C) No. 30939 of 2010 (N), decided on 25.02.2013, is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the High Court had only held that the matters can be decided by a Single Member Bench under the Act.