Consumer Protection Act 1986
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 08 May 2010
This query is : Resolved
The President of State Forum Tamilnadu had on occurring of a vacancy of the only member’s post due to his retirement, had promulgated an order that he is utilizing the powers conferred on him under sec 16 1(B) (ii) and constituting an one member bench and that the so constituted bench member will be himself. He was hearing the complaints then on. No one from legal quarters had raised any objection. Was he right in interpreting the rule?
R.R. KRISHNAA
(Expert) 08 May 2010
The provision is as follows:-
Section 16 1(B) (ii):- "A bench may be constituted by the president with one or more members as the president may deem fit."
Since a member has retired the president in exercise of the above powers conferred under the act has constituted the bench and his act is well within the ambit of his powers under the act. Also the word "may" confers discretion power on the president to appoint one or more members and hence the act of the president is correct.
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 08 May 2010
Dear Sri Krishna,
Thanks for clarification.
But as it appears to me he took the wrong view.
The State bench constituted normaly with a President and two members.
The section , it appears to me , is to empower him to to run business even with one member.
Also untill the said president assumed office, if the President takes a day off notice was put that there was no sitting of the Bench on that day. But due to his promalgation , the bench continues to hear cases whether he comes for work or not. Such thing is unheared of by me. Is there a functioning in other states like this?
R.R. KRISHNAA
(Expert) 08 May 2010
Dear Thyagarajan,
The powers conferred under the act or for the purpose any act, are neither arbitrary nor absolute.
Such powers are conferred on president/judges to facilitate the proceedings under certain circumstances (like retirement of members, etc etc). Every court has the powers to conduct the proceedings depending on the situation/change of circumstances (but such powers should not contravene statutue/law or result in inconvenience to public/litigants).
In my opinion the act of the president is right.
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 08 May 2010
Dear Sri Krishna,
Thanks for yr promt reply.
Why I took the mater for thought was that few litigants took exception to hearing of the cases by limited members in th State Forum of Tamilnadu as by lodging regular case before the Forum itself. The litigents felt more the members the more variatiopn will be there on decision on the verdict and the ultimate benificiary will be the litigants.Ofcourse this will happen only if the members are not the set of sheep that follow the leading sheep. I have mostly seen the mebers act as though they are under whip of the President of the Forum who was one of those who appointed them. I can understand this happening in politics not Judiciary.
Ofcourse, the Tamilnadu Advocate Association are not mute one. They pulled down the previous President of the Forum on quo warrento writ petition in high court. I am sure you will agree, more than the litigants if Lawyers feel unless a member who had been a judge earlier is not in the bench the verdict will not be good , the President can not act as he feels.
