Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a consumer complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum, Bankura, alleging inflated telephone bills and seeking an order to prevent disconnection of the telephone line. The District Forum had directed the respondent not to disconnect the telephone connection on condition that the appellant deposit Rs. 4,000/-. Despite this order, the telephone connection was disconnected on 30.11.1993 and was restored only on 25.5.1994. The complaint regarding the excessive bill of Rs. 13,896/- remained pending. The respondent appealed to the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission dismissed the appeal by its order dated 21.1.1994, but at that time the State Commission had no President because the incumbent had retired and no new President had been appointed. The order was passed by only two members of the State Commission. The respondent filed a revision petition under Section 21 of the Act before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The National Commission by its order dated 17.5.1995 allowed the revision, holding that the State Commission's order was illegal and void because it had been passed without the President, contrary to Section 14(2A) read with Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Commission also set aside interlocutory orders dated 14.10.1993 and 19.10.1993 passed by the District Forum on the ground that a Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to pass interim orders pending disposal of an original complaint, relying on Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartik Das. The appellant challenged the National Commission's order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. The Court noted the definition of 'member' in Section 2(jj), the procedure in Sections 14(2) and 14(2A), the applicability to State Commission under Section 18, and the validating provision in Section 29A. The Court also considered Rules 6(9) and 6(10) of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, which provide that when a vacancy occurs in the office of the President of the State Commission or the President is unable to discharge functions, the senior-most member shall discharge the functions of the President. The Court held that these provisions must be construed harmoniously to promote the object of the Act and not to render the State Commission non-functional in the absence of a President. The Court reasoned that when the President is functional, the President and at least one member should conduct proceedings; but when the President is non-functional due to vacancy or other cause, Rules 6(9) and 6(10) govern and the senior-most member may act. Section 29A further protects proceedings from invalidity merely due to vacancy or defect in constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the National Commission dated 17.5.1995, and upheld the validity of the State Commission's order dated 21.1.1994 despite the absence of a President.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - State Commission Composition - Validity of Order Passed Without President - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 14(2), 14(2A), 18, 29A; West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, Rules 6(9), 6(10) - The National Commission had set aside a State Commission order passed by two members without a President as contrary to Section 14(2A) read with Section 18. The Supreme Court construed these provisions harmoniously with Section 29A and Rules 6(9) and 6(10), which allow the senior-most member to discharge the President's functions when the President is vacant or unable to act. Held that the State Commission's order was not void and the National Commission's order was unsustainable (Paras 14-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order passed by a State Commission consisting of two members without a President, due to vacancy, was void under Section 14(2A) read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, or saved by Section 29A and West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, Rules 6(9) and 6(10); whether the National Commission was correct in setting aside the State Commission order and District Forum interlocutory orders as devoid of jurisdiction
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the National Commission dated 17.5.1995. The Court held that the State Commission's order dated 21.1.1994 was not invalid merely because it was passed by two members without a President, in view of Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Rules 6(9) and 6(10) of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987.
Law Points
- State Commission can function through senior-most member when President vacancy exists under Rules 6(9) and 6(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules
- 1987
- Section 29A of Consumer Protection Act
- 1986 saves proceedings from invalidity due to vacancy
- harmonious construction of Section 14(2) and 14(2A) with Section 29A and Rules 6(9) and 6(10)
