District Commission Must Refer Points Of Difference To Third Member If Two Presiding Members Don't Agree: Uttarakhand State Commission
7 months, 3 weeks ago

District Commission Must Refer Points Of Difference To Third Member If Two Presiding Members Don't Agree: Uttarakhand State Commission

Live Law  

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench Ms Kumkum Rani and Mr BS Manral allowed an appeal based on the District Commission's failure to follow the proper procedure under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Proviso to Section 14 provides that “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 of the District Forum.” The State Commission held that the points of difference were not mentioned to the third member while referring to the matter. Later, the Female Member confirmed the Male Member's decision on February 22, 2019, without following the proper procedure under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Observations of the Commission: The State Commission observed that the President and Male Member of the District Commission had passed differing judgments on October 20, 2015, without stating the points of difference.

Policy Consumer Uttarakhand Male State Commission State Commission President Points District Member District Commission Lic Male Member Third Member  members  uttarakhand  member  points  district  dont  commission  lic  presiding  state  male  policy  consumer  refer  president

History of this topic

Consumer Forums Can't Entertain Complaints Involving Allegations Of Embezzlement: NCDRC
8 months ago

Consumer Forums Can't Entertain Complaints Involving Allegations Of Embezzlement: NCDRC

Live Law  

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of J. Rajendra dismissed a revision petition filed against the postal department pertaining to the confiscation of the Complainant's recurring deposit account due to allegations of embezzlement. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aligarh. Aggrieved by the District Commission's order, the Officials filed an appeal …

Principle Of Natural Justice Not Followed, Uttarakhand Commission Set Aside Order Against KLM Airlines To Pay 8 Lacs To Customer
1 year, 6 months ago

Principle Of Natural Justice Not Followed, Uttarakhand Commission Set Aside Order Against KLM Airlines To Pay 8 Lacs To Customer

Live Law  

Recently, the bench of the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, consisting of Justice D.S. The District Commission had ordered KLM Airlines to pay Rs 9.2 Lakhs in compensation to the complainant, despite the airline not submitting a written statement. Consequently, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pauri Garhwal, seeking compensation for the aforementioned …

Consumer Dispute Should Not Be Considered Trivial Solely Because The Amount Involved Is Small: Gujarat State Commission
1 year, 7 months ago

Consumer Dispute Should Not Be Considered Trivial Solely Because The Amount Involved Is Small: Gujarat State Commission

Live Law  

The bench of the Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, consisting of M.J. Mehta and P. R. Shah, ruled that a consumer dispute should not be considered trivial solely because of the small amount involved. With the support of a consumer rights organization, Mr. Panchal initiated legal proceedings by filing a complaint with the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad …

Discover Related