1. IT is the opposite party who is petitioner before us. IT is submitted that the impugned order of the State Commission is non est as it does not bear the signature of the President of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. When this point was raised we requested Mr. Kishore Rawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner to examine the issue raised with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gulzari Lal Agarwal v. The Accounts Officer, III (1996) CPJ 12 (SC), where the Supreme Court in somewhat similar circumstances was considering the Consumer Protection Rules of the West Bengal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Mr. Rawat points out that the Consumer Protection Rules of West Bengal which were referred to in the judgment of the Supreme Court are different than the Consumer Protection Rules of Himachal Pradesh. He, therefore, sought to differentiate the judgment of the Supreme Court as not being applicable in this case. There could not be any dispute that the impugned order of the State Commission had been signed by only two Members. If we refer to the procedure applicable to State Commissions in the Consumer Protection Act Section 18 makes provisions of Sections 12, 13 and 14 applicable which sections pertain to procedure before District Forum. Sub-sections (2) and (2A) of Section 14 are relevant which we quote :
"(2) Every proceeding referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together : Provided that where the member, for any reason, is unable to conduct the proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall conduct such proceeding de novo. (2A) 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 : Provided that where 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".
Every order of the State Commission is thus to be signed by the President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. IT only means that Member or Members who conducted the proceedings with the President have to sign the order as well as the President. Under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 12 of the Central Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 provides that when the President of the National Commission is unable to discharge the functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the senior-most member of the National Commission with judicial background, if authorised so to do by the President in writing, shall discharge the functions of the President until the day on which the President resumes the charge of his functions. There is thus specific provision in these Rules with respect of the National Commission. No such rule on these lines we find in the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules. We were also referred to Sub-rule (6) of Rule 14 of Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules which provides that no act or proceedings of the State Commission shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy among its President or members or any defect in the constitution thereof. This Sub-rule (6) of Rule 14 refers to the constitution of the State Commission and not with the constitution of the Bench hearing the matter. IT will be interesting to note as to how Sub-rule (6) of Rule 12 of Central Consumer Protection Rules has been amended for time-to-time. Originally this sub-rule reads as under :"(6) Where any such casual vacancy occurs in the office of the President of the National Commission, the seniormost (in order of appointment) member of the National Commission holding office for the time being, shall discharge the functions of the President until a person appointed to fill such vacancy assumes the office of the President of the National Commission." By Notification issued on 14.8.1991 Sub-rule (6) was amended as under : "(6) When the office of the President of the National Commission is vacant or when such President is, by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to perform the duties of his office, the duties of the office shall be performed by such person, who is qualified to be appointed as President of the National Commission, as the Central Government may appoint for the purpose." Presently Sub-rule (6) which was amended by the Notification of 27.2.1997 reads as under, which we have already noticed above and quote again : "(6) When the President of the National Commission is unable to discharge the functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the seniormost member of the National Commission with judicial background, if authorised so to do by the President in writing, shall discharge the functions of the President until the day on which the President resumes the charge of his functions."
Since no similar provision exists in the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules it is difficult to uphold the order of the State Commission which is signed by two Members and does not bear the signature of the President. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order being non est is set aside. The matter will go back to the State Commission to hear and decide the appeal in accordance with law. Revision Petition allowed.
