R.MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. MANAGER CANARA BANK
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2008-9-4
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 23,2008

R.MUTHUKRISHNAN Appellant
VERSUS
Manager Canara Bank Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.KANNADASAN, J. - (1.) The Revision Petition is filed as against the order passed by the District Forum with regard to the competency of the District Forum to conduct the proceedings. According to the petitioner, Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 makes it clear that the District Forum shall consists of one President and Two Members. The petitioner would submit that a reading of Section-10 of the Act makes it clear that unless the District Forum consists of One President and Two Members, it is not competent to deal with any complaints and to decide the same. When such a preliminary objection was raised by the complainant, the District Forum has rejected the said complaint.
(2.) Against which, the present Revision Petition is filed.
(3.) A perusal of Section 14 (2) makes it clear that the proceedings shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum along with at least one Member. Section 14(2-A) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 which proceeds as follows: 14 -(2-A) Every order made by the District Forum under sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the proceeding: A careful reading of Section 14(2-A) makes it clear that the District Forum is competent to deal with the complaint and pass orders wherever the District Forum, consists of the President along with one Member. It is useful to refer the decision of the Honble National Commission reported in 1996 (1) CPR-96 (NC) in a case of Telecom Divisional Engineer vs- Virendra Kumar Agarwal, which proceeds as follows: Its mandatory that proceedings be conducted by the President of the State Commission Jointly with at least one member. As observed by the Honble National Commission, the only requirements to proceed with the complaint is that the President shall sit at least along with another Member in terms of Section 14(2) of the Act. The Honble National Commission has also placed reliance upon Section 18 of the Act which proceeds to the effect that the procedure with regard to the disposal of the complaint by the District Forum shall be applicable to the State Commission also. The National Commission by placing reliance upon Section 14(2) read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, held that the proceedings be conducted by the President of the State Commission jointly with at least one Member. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is not supported by the law. The petitioner has urged another submission that if the complaint is disposed of by the President along with only one Member that cannot be considered as a sound judgment. We do not agree with the said contentions in the light of the procedure prescribed by the Act under Section 14(2).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.