- Home
- /
- Consumer Cases
- /
- District Commission Proceedings...
District Commission Proceedings Mandatorily Require Presence Of President, Uttarakhand State Commission Nullifies Order
Smita Singh
5 Dec 2023 4:00 AM GMT
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench, comprising Mr Justice D.S. Tripathi (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member), allowed an appeal against the impugned order of the District Commission, Haridwar, on the grounds of procedural irregularity. The State Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act requires the President of the District Commission to be...
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench, comprising Mr Justice D.S. Tripathi (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member), allowed an appeal against the impugned order of the District Commission, Haridwar, on the grounds of procedural irregularity. The State Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act requires the President of the District Commission to be present in each proceeding along with at least one member. Since the impugned order was decided by a bench solely comprising members of the District Commission, it was nullified, and the matter was remanded back to the District Commission for a fresh hearing.
Brief Facts:
Sh. Sudhanshu Sain (“Complainant”) enrolled in the 3-year L.L.B. course at B.S.M College of Law (“Law College”), affiliated with Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University (“University”). The Complainant regularly attended the classes and appeared for semester examinations. The result of the final semester was published on the website on 29.10.2018 and surprisingly, the Complainant discovered that he had been awarded 0 marks in one subject and declared failed. Consequently, he had to retake the examination. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar, Uttarakhand (“District Commission”).
The Complainant, asserting his academic performance as a bright student with consistently good ranks in previous semester examinations, alleged a gross error on the part of both the Law College and the University. In response, the University argued that the examiner awarded 0 marks due to dissatisfaction with the Complainant's answers. The District Commission ruled in favour of the Complainant, directing the Law College and the University to compensate him with Rs. 50,000/- and further instructing the University not to assign the same examiner to reevaluate the Complainant's answer sheet.
Displeased with the District Commission's decision, the University filed an appeal with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand (“State Commission").
Observations of the Commission:
Without delving into the merits of the case, the State Commission observed that the impugned order of the District Commission was issued by a bench solely composed of members from the District Commission, with the President of the District Commission not being involved in the proceedings. Upon reviewing Section 36(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which explicitly requires the President to preside over every proceeding along with at least one member of the District Commission, the State Commission concluded that the District Commission's order violated the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and could not be enforced. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the District Commission for a fresh hearing.
Case Title: Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University vs Sh. Sudhanshu Sain and Anr.
Case No.: First Appeal No. 20/2022
Advocate for the Complainant/Respondent: N.A.
Advocate for the Appellant: Sh. Chitradeep Rana
