Full Judgment
M. THANIKACHALAM J.
1. The petitioner as complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) for certain relief, which we are not concerned at present. In the said Forum, as reported, there is only one member, though the Act contemplates two members to preside over alongwith the President of the District Forum.
2. The petitioner / Complainant filed this application seeking transfer of his case in CC No.122/2007 from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) to the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) since the District Forum, Chennai (North) is having two members and the Forum is functioning with full corum.
3. The petitioner in person submitted that under Sub Sec.(1) of Section 10 of the Act, the Forum should consist of a President and two other members to decide the case, but the District Forum, Chennai (South) does consist of a President and one Member only and in this view they cannot constitute the Forum eventually satisfying the requirement of the Act and in this view the case should be transferred to District Forum, Chennai (North), where there are two members alongwith the President to decide the matter expeditiously. The submission of the petitioner though appears to be some what prima-facie arguable, since there is no specific clause empowering the President of the District Forum to constitute a bench with one member, there is a fallacy in the argument is evident from the careful reading of Rule 4 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Rules, 1988, read with Sec.14(2-A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is covered by precedent. Under Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act it is specifically stated that a proceedings could be conducted by the President of the District Forum alongwith one member and therefore attempt made by the petitioner to say that unless both members are available, the Forum cannot function is not worthy of consideration when we read Sec.14 of the Act, which reads as follows:
âEvery proceedings referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and atleast one member thereof sitting together.
4. The legislature contemplating this kind of contingency had made inbuilt provision in the main Act itself under Sec.29A of the Consumer Protection Act, which reads as follows:
âNo act or proceeding of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy amongst its members or any defect in the constitution thereof.â
Pursuant this alone, the state legislature also framed Rules, which reads as
âNo act or proceedings of the District Forum shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy among its President or members or ay defect in its constitution.â
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that in the absence of two members, President and one member cannot constitute a bench and decide the case validly appears to be fruitless, untenable and even we can say unwarranted. When the Act mandates/ contemplates the proceedings will not be invalidated in the absence of one member, a person who approached the Forum seeking relief, if it is genuine, warranted or necessitated, he should have conducted the case instead of agitating or projecting frivolous grounds.
5. This petitioner had raised the same point before this Commission in R.P.No.55/2008, negatived, which on appeal confirmed by the Honble National Commission by its order dt.16/4/2009 in R.P.No.684/2009.
6. In the above petition also the same petitioner had raised the same contention that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), is not a competent authority, to hear and decide the case filed by him before the District Forum Chennai (South), as there was vacancy in the member post. It was further contended by the petitioner in that case, that the District Forum had no legal or statutory authority to hear and decide the consumer disputes, in view of the fact that each District Forum should consist of a President and two other members. Considering the above facts in the said case, the District Forum rejected the contention of the party, which was impugned before this Commission, wherein this Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum, which was once again impugned before the Honble National Commission by way of R.P.No.684/2009. Their Lordships of Honble National Commission, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as Rule 4 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Rules and Sec.14 (2-A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, came to the conclusion, which reads as follows:
In view of clear-cut statutory provision to enable the functioning of the District Forum with President and at least one member thereof sitting together as enumerated above we do not see any merit in this Revision Petition.â
thereby answering the contention of this petitioner directly without any ambiguity. Following the above decision, we have no other option except to reject this application and the same is rejected as not maintainable.