GULZARI LAL AGARWAL versus ACCOUNTS OFFICER

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 25-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GULZARI LAL AGARWAL 
v. 
ACCOUNTS OFFICER 
SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 
(KULDIP SINGH AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Ss. 2(jj), 9(b), 13, 14(2), & (2A), 16, 
18 and 29A. 
C 
State Commission-President not appointed or President not discharg-
ing his function-Order passed by State Commission in the absence of 
President-Validity of-Held Senionnost member shall discharge function of 
President until a person is appointed to fill such vacancy or tlze President 
becomes Ju,nctional in tenns of sub-mies (9) and ( 10) of R. 6-17tzts State 
Commission will not be rendered non-functional for want of the Presi-
D dent-Hence order passed by tlze State Commission in the absence of the 
President is neither illegal nor void-West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 
1987, Rule 6(9) and (10). 
Section 14--Scope of-Held: Consumer Fonun has no jurisdiction or 
power to pass any interim order pending disposal of original complaint filed 
E before it: 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Hamwnious constmction-Held: Every provision in the Act should be 
constmed lzannoniously with a view to promoting the object and spirit of the 
F Act as long as 1w violence is caused to the plain language of the provision. 
The appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum as regards 
inflated telephone· bills. The District Forum passed an interim order 
directing the respondent not to disconnect the telephone connection on the 
G condition that the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000. The appellant 
complied with the said order. 
Being aggrieved the respondent filed an appeal before the State 
Commission, which was dismissed. Thereafter the respondent preferred a 
Revision Petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 
H before the National Commission, and it allowed the appeal on the ground 
708 
G.L AGARWAL v. ACCOUNTS OFFICER [S.P. KURDUKAR, J. 
709 
that the order passed by the State Commission was illegal and void being A 
contrary to Section 14(2A) read with Section 18 of the Act since the State 
Commission was not having the President at the relevant time when the 
order was passed. The National Commission further held that the District 
Forum had no jurisdiction or power to pass any interim order pending 
disposal of an original complaint before it. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the National Com-
mission erroneously concluded that in the absence of the President of the 
State Commission the other two members had no jurisdiction to deal with 
B 
the disputes/appeal filed before the State Commission; and that Section 
2(jj), 14(2- A), 18-A and 29-A of the Act and Rule 6(9) and (10) of the West C 
Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 should be construed har-
moniously with a view to promoting the object and spirit of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal in part, this Court 
D 
HELD : 1.1. Every provision in an Act needs to be construed har-
moniously with a view to promoting the object and spirit of the Act but 
while doing so, no violence would be done to the plain language used in 
the Section. It is this principle that needs to be made applicable while 
construing the provision of 14(2) and (2-A) of the Consumer Protection 
Act, 1986 read with Rule 6(9) and (10) of the West Bengal Consumer E 
Protection Rules, 1987. If sub-sections (2) and (2-A) of Section 14 are read 
with Section 29-A of the Act and sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6, it would' 
be quite clear that it could never be the intention of the 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 F 
reasons or if the President is on leave due to certain reasons beyond his 
control. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 is a presumptuous provision where 
the President of the State Commission is functional but it would not be 
correct to say that if the President of the State Commission is non-
functional because of one or the other reason, the State Commission would 
stop its functioning and wait till the President is appointed. The only G 
harmonious construction that could be given to sub-sections (2) and (2-A) 
of Section 14 read with sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 is that as and when 
the President of the State Commission is functional, he alongwith at least 
one member sitting together shall conduct the proceeding but where the 
President being non-functional, sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 will govern H 
710 
SUPREME COUR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.