GENERAL MANAGER M T N L LTD Vs. NOZAR J IRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings in this case commenced with a complaint filed by the Respondent herein before the District Forum, Bombay, against the General Manager, M.T.N.L. & Anr. claiming compensation for the alleged illegal disconnection of the Complainant's telephone. The case was disposed of by the District Forum by its Order dated 11.07.1990. The hearing of the case was conducted only by the President of the District Forum sitting alongwith one other Member, the third member of the Forum being absent, there was a difference of opinion between the President and the other Member and they delivered separate divergent judgments in the case. But by invoking sub-Rule 4 of Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 the decision of the President which was in favour of the Opposite Party was trearted as the decision of the District Forum.

(2.) The Complainant took up the matter in an appeal before the State Commission, Bombay. The State Commission without going into the question of legality of the disposal of the matter by 2 Members of the District Forum went into the merits of the appeal petition and set aside the Order of the President of the District Forum and issued a direction to the Opposite Party M.T.N.L., Bombay to reconnect the telephone of the Complainant within a period of one month from the to Complainant by way of his costs. In this Revision Petition filed by the General Manager, M.T.N.L., Bombay, the main contention advanced on behalf of the Revision Petitioner is that there was no valid disposal of the complainant petition by the District Forum and hence the State Commission should have remanded the matter to the District Forum for fresh disposal.

(3.) The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revision Petitioner relied on the decision of this Commission in M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. V.K. Jain in Revision Petition No. 41 of 1990 to support his contention that the disposal of the case by two Members only of the District Forum was nullity.