Consumer forum can pass orders without president: Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling , the Bombay High Court recently held that a consumer forum can pass orders without its president [Aparna Chatterjee vs Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs].A bench of Justices Vinay Deshpande and Amit Borkar upheld the legality and validity of Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (now repealed) which states that proceedings before a consumer forum will not be invalid merely because there is a vacancy amongst its members."Though we expect it is more appropriate and desirable to function with the President of the District Forum or State Commission while adjudicating complaints under the Act, the provisions of the said Act are required to be interpreted as broadly as possible. The mere absence of the President for reasons beyond control alone is not sufficient for striking down Section 29A of the Act as unconstitutional, particularly when such provision has been made to render the District Forum or State Commission functional in theabsence of the President," the judgment said.The High Court accordingly dismissed six criminal writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 29A."In our opinion, the language of Section 29A of the Act is intended to provide for a situation where a President of State Commission or District Forum is non-functional, either having not been appointed in time or is on leave due to reasons beyond his control. The scheme of appointment and adjudication of consumer disputes is laid down under the Act to make the District Forum or State Commission continuously functional, allowing the Members in the absence of the President to function in a situation beyond the control of the Members of the Forum," the Court added..The judgment was rendered in a batch of petitions challenging Section 29A on the ground that the same was violative of the fundamental right to equality as it does not mandate the president to be a party to an order.The petitions assailed an order passed on February 17, 2020, by a district forum at Nagpur in a real-estate dispute, wherein the judgment ordering the developers to hand over possession of flats was signed by two members of the forum.Taking note of the challenge, the judges noted that the rules do not say that such fora have to stop its functioning and wait till a president is appointed. "It is held that Rules are framed with a view to making the State Commission functional in the absence of the President and not to halt the State Commission and render it non-functional for want of the President."There is a statutory remedy to challenge the district fora's order before the National Commission, and the High Court would not be entertaining the said challenge since the petitioners are liberty to move the same, the judgment added. .Advocate SV Bhutada appeared for the petitioners. Additional Solicitor General Nandesh Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor MK Pathan and advocate HR Gadhia appeared for the respondents. .[Read Judgment]