9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposits a sum of ₹ 4,000/-. The appellant accordingly complied with the said order. It appears that despited this order, the telephone connection of the appellant was disconnected on 30.11.1993. The appellant thereafter moved an application for restoration and it is common premise that on 25.5.1994, the telephone connection was restored. The complaint as regards the excessive bill of ₹ 13,896/- is still pending. 2. the respondent not being satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum preferred an appeal to the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 21.1.1994 dismissed the said appeal, holding that the order passed by the District Forum was in consonance with the circular dated 15.10.1992 issued by the Telephone Department. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the respondent preferred Revision petition under Section 21 of the Act before the National Commission. The national Commission after hearing the parties vide its impugned order dated May 17, 1995 allowed the Revision Petition primarily on the ground of jurisdiction. the National Commission has held as under: The impugned order passed by the State Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided 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. 14(2A)-Every order made by the District Forum under sun section (1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the proceedings; 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 or the District forum. 9. Section 16 deals with the Composition of the Sate Commission and it reads as under: 16. Composition of the State Commission:- (1) Each State Commission shall consist of - (a) a person who is or had been a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the Sate Government, who shall be its President: (Provided that no appointment under this clause shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court;) (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) xxxx xxxx xxxx (3) xxxx xxxx xxxx (4) xxxx xxxx ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the functions. 14. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, it is necessary to consider as to whether the impugned order passed by the National Commission is legal. The National Commission held that the order passed by the State Commission is manifestly contrary to a mandatory provision contained in Section 14(2A) read with Section 18 of the Act as it was made by two other members of the said commission without the 'junctions' of the President. 15. Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the impugned order is unsustainable. He urged that the National Commission had totally overlooked certain provisions contained in the Act and the Rules and erroneously came the conclusion that in the absence of the President of the State Commission being functional, the other two members have no jurisdiction to deal with the disputes/appeal filed before the State commission. In support of the submission, Learned Counsel drew our attention to the definition of a member contained on Clause (jj) of Section 2 and Sections 14(2A), 18A and 29A. Reliance was also placed in sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6. Mr. Bhattacharya urges that all these provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it would be quite clear that it could never be the intention of legislature to stall or render the State Commission non-functional in the absence of the President either having not been appointed in time due to some valid reasons or if the President is on the leave due to certain reasons beyond his control. (2) and (2A) of Section 14 and Section 18A of the Act were brought into force with effect from 18-6-1993 whereas Section 29A was made applicable from 15.6.1991. The Rules of 1987 were brought into force immediately. The complaint before the District Forum by the appellant was filed on 14-10-1993. Therefore, all these amended provisions were very much brought into force when the complaint was filed. Sub-section (2) if section 14 is a presumptuous provision where the President if the State Commission is functional but it would not be correct to say that if the President of the President of the State Commission id non-functional because of one or the other reason, the State Commission would stop its functioning and wait till the President is appointed. In order to avoid such a situation, the State Government had framed the Rules and sub-rules (9) and (10) quoted hereinabove unmis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
