NEW DELHI, AUG 22: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that the majority judgement of a state commission cannot be valid in the absence of a formal pronouncement of the order.Setting aside a Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order, National Commission President Justice Suhas C Sen and members R Thamarajakshi, Justice C L Chaudhry and Justice J K Mehra held such an order cannot be said to be valid as required under rule-7 (12) of the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987.
The National Commission ordered the State Commission to ``re-hear the case de-novo (afresh) in accordance with law.'' The case related to an insurance claim of Rs 17.32 lakh filed by one Dharmendra Kumar Lall against the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
The case was heard on evidence by the State Commission on November 28, 1996 and it was recorded in the ordersheet as: ``Arguments heard. The case is reserved for orders.''
The then Chairman of State Commission Justice N C Sharmadictated the order disposing of the complaint, signed it and sent it to Feroza Bano, another member of the Commission.
On May 12, 1997, Bano expressed her disagreement with the order passed by the Chairman and said that she would write a separate judgment. However, the judgment of the Chairman was not placed before the third member Dr Subhash Purohit.
Meanwhile, Chairman Justice Sharma retired from the Commission and it was reconstituted in September 1997. Two months later, Bano wrote a dissenting judgement and sent it to the third member Dr Subhash Purohit who concurred with the same.
However, no proper order sheet was maintained in the case. When the complainant sought execution of majority order, the insurance company pleaded that the execution petition be stayed till final disposal of the appeal pending before the National Commission.
The State Commission, which found difficulty in drawing up a decree for execution, sought direction from the National Commission. The main issue before theNational Commission was whether the majority judgement can be upheld in the absence of any order sheet since November, 1996, without formal pronouncement of the order by the two members and without being pronounced by the Chairman.
Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.