Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1213 (JHR)

Nita Shekhar v. Swarn Mani Devi

2012-08-14

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Notices were issued to sole respondent and earlier she has appeared by filing vakalatnama. 3. However, no one appears on behalf of sole respondent today. 4. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.02.2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi as being in contravention of Section 14 (2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 5. The ground for assailing the impugned order is that Complaint Case No. 66 of 2005, filed by the sole respondent out of which the present writ petition arises, was dismissed by one of the members while the President of the Commission disagreed holding that the complaint case is maintainable under the Provision of Section 2(d)(ii) and (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in which case the matter should have been referred to third member for hearing on such point or points of difference between the two members. However, vide order dated 27.02.2006 instead of following procedure prescribed under the Act referring the matter to the point or points of difference to third member under Section 14 (2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the matter has been posted for further hearing. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from error of law, which is apparent on the face of the record and District Consumer Forum has gone beyond jurisdiction in posting the matter for further hearing when earlier on account of difference of opinion over the maintainability of the complaint case in their individual separate judgments has been passed on 27.07.2006 in the same case. Provisions of Section 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are quoted herein below:- “14(2A) Every order made the proceeding is conducted by the President and one member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points, on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point or points and the opinion of the majority shall be the order of the District Forum.” 7. From perusal of the impugned order and the provisions quoted hereinabove, it is apparent that the learned District Forum has committed an error of law apparent on the face of record as it has been acted contrary to the requirement of law to be followed in such cases of difference of opinion between two members as it would appear from the provisions of Section 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In case the proceeding is conducted by the President and one of the member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point or points and the opinion of the majority shall be the order of the District Forum. The learned Forum has clearly acted contrary to the jurisdiction conferred upon them by failing to observe mandate of law as per the provisions of Section 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 8. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Forum for further hearing of the matter as per the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and it is, accordingly, quashed. The matter is remanded back to the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ranchi to hear it afresh and in accordance with law by giving opportunities to the parties. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is allowed.