1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 17.12.2015, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') vide which, consumer complaint No. 1859/2013, and other connected 41 cases were ordered to be decided by two members of the IIIrd Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the President of the said Forum was directed to recuse himself from proceedings in the said cases.
2. In consumer complaint No. 1859/2013 and other cases, it was alleged by the complainants that the OP developer M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited failed to deliver the flats in question in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, despite payment of the entire amount of money to the said developer. The complainants initiated proceedings against the builders, alleging deficiency in service on their part. However, when the parties concluded their arguments before the District Forum and the matter was fixed for final orders on 16.12.2015, the OP Builder filed a transfer application before the State Commission, alleging that certain comments made by the President during hearing, had created an impression in the mind of the OPs that the President was biased against them. The State Commission vide order dated 16.12.2015 dismissed the application seeking transfer of the cases. However, on 17.12.2015, the State Commission passed another order, in which they stated as follows:-
"Thus, instead of transferring entire cases to other forum as other two members of the District Forum have already heard the arguments, it is proper that members as well write the judgement and President be directed to recuse himself from proceedings in the said cases. Thus, III Addl. District Forum is directed accordingly. "
3. The petitioner has challenged the said order, saying that under section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the proceedings before the District Forum had necessarily to be conducted by the President of such Forum and at least one Member thereof, sitting together. Under section 14(2A), any order made by the District Forum, had to be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. It was, therefore, the mandate of law that two Members of the District Forum without involvement of the President, could not conduct the proceedings in question. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, bad in the eyes of law.
4. The petitioners have stated that direction should be issued to the President and Member of the District Forum to discharge their official duties by pronouncing the final orders.
5. The OP/respondent builder have, however, taken the plea that they had lost faith in the President of the District Forum and hence, the case should not be decided by him.
6. The main point for consideration in the matter is whether the order passed by the State Commission, directing two Members of the District Forum minus the President, was in accordance with law or not. In this regard, Section 14(2) and Section 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are reproduced as under:-
"14(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:
Proviso.......................................................
14 (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:
Proviso................................................"
7. It is clear from a perusal of the above provisions that the proceedings under section 13 of the Act in the case of District Forum have to be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one more member sitting together. However, in the case of the National Commission, it has been provided under section 20(1A)(ii) that a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more Members as the President may deem fit. A similar provision is given in the Act for the State Commission in the shape of section 16(1B)(ii), according to which, the Bench is to be constituted by the President with one or more Members. It is clear from these provisions that in the case of State Commission and the National Commission, the Bench could consist of one or more Members, as constituted by the President of that Commission. However, the situation is different in the case of District Forum, because the proceedings have to be conducted by the President himself, alongwith one or more Members.
8. Section 22(D) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that when the office of President of a District Forum, a State Commission or National Commission is vacant or the person occupying such office is unable to perform his office duties, such duties shall be performed by the senior most Member of the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission. It is evident, therefore, that if the office of President of the District Forum is vacant, the Members of the District Forum shall definitely, be entitled to perform the duties of the President.
9. In the case in hand, however, it is evident that the President of the District Forum was very much in position and hence, the proceedings could be conducted by the said President only, alongwith one or two Members. The direction given by the State Commission in the impugned order that the other two Members of the District Forum should conduct the proceedings is, therefore, not in accordance with law. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside accordingly.
10. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, when the OP Builders have expressed apprehension about the President and the President himself also stated on 27.11.2015 that the District Forum was not inclined to decide the case, because the OPs had lost faith in the Forum, it will be in the interest of justice to transfer the said cases to another District Forum of competent jurisdiction. It is ordered, therefore, that all the consumer complaints in question, are transferred to the Principal, District Forum, in Bangalore city for disposal of the same in accordance with law.
The parties are directed to appear before the said District Forum for further proceedings on 22.12.2016.
