Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 423 (DEL)

MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED v. V. K. JAIN

1990-12-20

A.S.VIJAYAKAR, BRIJENDRA SINGH, V.B.ERADI, Y.KRISHNAN

body1990
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. ( 1 ) THE sole question arising for determination in this Revision Petition is whether an order disposing of a complaint petition passed only two out of three Members constituting a District Forum can be regarded as valid in law. ( 2 ). A complaint petition was filed by the respondent berein before the District Forum, Delhi seeking to recover compensation from the Revision petitioner-M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. , for alleged negligence and delay on the latter s part in effecting delivery of a vehicle to the complainant On the date when the complaint petition was taken up for hearing by the District Forum, the President of the District Forum was not present and the case was heard and disposed of by a Bench consisting of only the two other Members of the Forum The said Bench disposed of the complaint petition by order dated January 16, 1990 whereby the revision petitioner (opposite party in the complaint) was directed to pay to the complainant (. a) 18% interest on a sum of Rs. 91,976. 20 (being the amount deposited by the complainant towards the price of the vehicle) for the period from 8th August, 1989 to 23rd October, 1989 ; (b) a sum of Rs. 6,316. 56 by way of refund of the excess price collected from the complainant for the vehicle and (c) Rs. 7,000. 00 by way of compensation for the loss of livelihood and the sufferings which the complainant bad to undergo. ( 3 ). In the last paragraph of the order it was specifically stated that this judgment is delivered under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Rule 3 (8) and Rule 4 (10) promulgated vide notification No. 50 (131)/06-Fands/ca dated 29th September. 1987. " Obviously, this was so stated by way of answer to the objections raised by the Opposite Party against the competence of the Bench consisting of only two Members of the District Forum to hear and dispose of the complaint petition. ( 4 ). The revision petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the State Commission, Delhi. In the arguments before the State Commission the appellant is stated to have urged only the aforesaid question relating to the legality of the disposal of the petition by the Bench consisting of only two Members of the District Forum. ( 4 ). The revision petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the State Commission, Delhi. In the arguments before the State Commission the appellant is stated to have urged only the aforesaid question relating to the legality of the disposal of the petition by the Bench consisting of only two Members of the District Forum. The State Commission took the view that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 3 (8) and 4 (10) of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (hereinafter called the delhi Rules ), it was competent for a Bench consisting of only two of the Members of the Forum to validly function as the District Forum. It was further held by the State Commission that orders passed by such a Bench of the Forum are not liable to be challenged on the ground of the casual absence of any Member of the Forum in view of the provision contained in Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, On the basis of this reasoning, the State Commission held that the impugned order passed by two Members of the District Forum did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal was accordingly dismissed by the State Commission. ( 5 ). The legality and correctness of the aforesaid view taken by the State Commission is under challenge in this revision petition. Section 14 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the act ) reads :- "every order made by the District Forum under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by all the members constituting it and, if there is any difference of opinion, the order of the majority of the members constituting it shall be the order of the District Forum"section 10 (1) of the Act which deals with the composition of the District Forum states: "10 (1) Each District Forum shall consist of- (a) aperson who is, or has been, or is qaulified to be a District Judge to be nominated by the State Government, to be its President; (b) a person of eminence in the field of education, trade or commerce; (c) a lady social worker. ( 6 ). Each District Forum thus consists of its President and two Members. Section 14 (2) of the Act mandatorily lays down that every order passed by the District Forum under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by all the Members constituting it. ( 6 ). Each District Forum thus consists of its President and two Members. Section 14 (2) of the Act mandatorily lays down that every order passed by the District Forum under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by all the Members constituting it. The word "it" occurring in the said sub-section clearly refers to a District Forum established in accordance with Section 10 (1) of the Act. Under the said Section the President and the two other members together constitute the District Forum. Under the mandatory terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 it is clearly stipulated that every order passed by the District Forum should be signed by "all the members constituting it", that is by all the three persona mentioned in Section 10 (1) of the Act. ( 7 ). The second part of Section 14 (2) lays down that if there is difference of opinion the order of the majority of the members constituting it shall be the order of the District Fornm. This provision is manifestly based on the assumption that the disposal of any complaint petition shall be only by all the three members because otherwise in the event of difference of opinion between only two persons there cannot be a "majority view". Rules 3 (8) and 4 (10) of the Delhi Rules which have been referred to and relied on by the State Commission as well as by the District Forum have. been framed in exercise of the Rule making power conferred by Subsection (3) of Section 14 of the Act. The said sub section reads :- "subject to the foregoing provisions, the procedure relating to the conduct of the meeting of the District Forum,its sittins and other matters shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. " ( 8 ). From the very opening words of this sub-section, it is clear that the power to make Rules has been conferred only subject to the provisions contained in Subsection (1) and (2) of the said Section. Hence no Rule can be made in exercise of the said power except in a manner perfectly consistent with the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) and if the said limitation is transgressed, the Rule will have to be treated as void to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions contained in Sub-section (2 ). Hence no Rule can be made in exercise of the said power except in a manner perfectly consistent with the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) and if the said limitation is transgressed, the Rule will have to be treated as void to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions contained in Sub-section (2 ). AT this stage it will be useful to extract Rule 3 (8) and Rule 4 (10) of the Delhi Rules which have been relied on by the State Commission. Rule 3 (8) :-"when the President of the District Forum is unable to discharge the functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the senior most (in order of appointment) Member of the District Forum shall discharge the functions of the President until the day on which the President resumes the charge of his functions" Rule 4 (10) :-"orders of the District Forum shall be signed and dated by the Members of the District Forum constituting the Bench and shall be communicated to parties free of charge. " ( 9 ). In our opinion Rule 3 (8) is of little relevance in the present context. As we understand the said Rule, it only empowers the senior most Member of the District Forum to discharge the administrative functions of the President during the period when the President of the District Forum is unable to discharge those functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause. The President of the District Forum has several administrative functions to discharge in relation to matters concerning the officeestablishment of the District Forum. The provision contained in Rule 3 (8) is only intended to avoid a vacuum in regard to the performance of such administrative functions of the President during a period of temporary absence of the President and it is not a provision dealing with the discharge of the quasi judicial functions by the President of the District Forum. In regard to performance of judicial work, the President of the District Forum stands in the same position as the other two Members and he has no separate or distinctive role or function to discharge. It is only in regard to the administrative work of the District Forum that the President has his own separate role and function and the reference in Rule 3 (8) is only to such administrative functions of the President. It is only in regard to the administrative work of the District Forum that the President has his own separate role and function and the reference in Rule 3 (8) is only to such administrative functions of the President. This sub-rule is therefore of no assistance or relevance in deciding consilting of only two ot the Members of the District Forum to pass final orders disposing of a complaint petition filed before it. ( 10 ). The position in relation to Rule 4 (10) is however, quite different. Under the terms of said Rule, orders of the District Forum arc required to be signed only by the members of the Forum constituting the Bench which heard the case. Though the Rule does not expressly state that the bench of the Forum need not consist of all the members constituting the District Forum. It is capable of being interpreted and understood as implying that a complaint may be heard and dispose it of by a Bench of the District Forum which does not comprise all the three members (President and two Members) and that the order passed by such a Bench need be signed only by the Members of the District Forum "constituting the Bench". If Rule 4 (10) is to be interpreted in this manner its provisions are directly in confict with the mandatory provision contained in Subsection (2) of Section 14 of the Act. Thus this sub-rule has been framed in clear violation of the limitation impoied on the Rule making power by the opening words of Sub-section (3) of Section 14. Rule 4 (10) framed by the Delhi Administration has therefore to be regarded as ultra vires and vo;d on the ground that. the Delhi Administration has manifestly acted beyond the scope of the Rule making power conferred on it by Section 14 (3) of the Act Even apart from the restriction imposed by the opening words of Section 14 (3), it is a well recognised legal principle that a Rule can be framed under a statute only in a manner consistent with the provision contained in the parent enactment and it there is any inconsistency between the terms of a Rule framed under an Act and any of the provisions of the Act, the Rule will have to be treated as null and void to the extent of such repugnancy. Hence the provisions contained in Rule 4 (10) in so far as it implies that an order can be signed and passed by a Bench which does not consist of all the three Members of the District Forum has to be treated as null and void to the extent of such repugnancy. Hence the provisions contained in Rule 4 (10) in so far as it implies that anorder can be signed and passed by a Bench which does pot consist of all the three Members of the District Forum has to be treated as null and void since it is directly in conflict with the mandatory stipulation contained in Section 14 (2) of the Act. Rule 4 (5) of the Delhi Rules is the only other provision relied on by the State Commission in support of its conclusion upholding the legality of the order passed by the District Forum. Rule 4 (5) reads :- "no act or proceedings of the District Forum shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy among its members or any "defect in its constitution". ( 11 ) CASUAL absence on account of illness, or any other cause does not create a "vacancy" among the Members of the District Forum. A vacancy can be said to exist only when the post of the Member is unoccupied and remains to be filled by appointment of a substitute Such vacancy can arise on account of the expiry of the term of office of a member, death or resignation of a Member or the removal of a Member from office in exercise of the powers conferred on the administrator by Rule 6 (5) of the Delhi Rules. We are not concerned in this case with the other contingency referred to in the laid Rule namely a defect in the consititution of the District Forum. The reliance placed by the State Commission on Rule 4 (5) of the Delhi Rules is, therefore, wholly misconceived. ( 12 ). We are not concerned in this case with the other contingency referred to in the laid Rule namely a defect in the consititution of the District Forum. The reliance placed by the State Commission on Rule 4 (5) of the Delhi Rules is, therefore, wholly misconceived. ( 12 ). The position that emerges from the foregoing discussion is that under the mandatory provision contained in Section 14 (2) of the Act ai it now stands, every order passed by a District Forum has to be signed by all the three Members (President and two members) all of whom together constitute the District Forum and it is not competent for a Bench consisting of only two Members or even a single Members of a District Forum to validly hear and dispose of any complaint filed before the District Forum. The contrary view taken by the State Commission cannot be accepted as legally correct or sound. ( 13 ). We arc fully conscious of the serious inconvenience and delay that would result from the insistence on the presence of all the members at every sitting of the District Forum but when the point is directly raised it has to be answered only in accordance with what has been laid down by the statute. The language of Section 14 (2) of the Act being clear and unambiguous, it is our duty to give effect to it We should however point out that it being of the essence of the purpose and intent of the Act to ensure speedy disposal of consumer grievances the said purpose will be frustrated to a considerable extent if Section 14 (2) is to be retained in its present form. Many of the District Forums in the country are functioning on part-time basis and it may frequently happen that one of the members of the Forum suddenly finds himself/herself unable to be present for a sitting A postponement of all the cases posted before the Forum for that day would manifestly involve great amount of inconvenience and expenditure to the parties in addition to causing delay in disposals. To avoid this situation, it is necessary that an appropriate amendment should be urgently carried out in Sub-section (2) of Section 14 so that the objective of assuring cheap and speedy redressal of Consumer grievances should not be hampered. ( 14 ). To avoid this situation, it is necessary that an appropriate amendment should be urgently carried out in Sub-section (2) of Section 14 so that the objective of assuring cheap and speedy redressal of Consumer grievances should not be hampered. ( 14 ). The orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum in the present case are illegal and without jurisdiction and they will accordingly stand set aside. The District Forum, Delhi is directed to restore to its file Complaint Petition No. 1606 of 1989 and dispose it of afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations contained in this order. There will be no direction regarding costs.