Consumer forum continuity and interim relief powers: vacancy in the President's office did not void proceedings, but interim orders were beyond jurisdiction.

Procedural provisions governing consumer fora must be read harmoniously to preserve their functioning. Where the President's office of a State Commission was vacant, the presence of two members did not by itself render the Commission's order illegal or void, because the Act and rules contemplated continuity of the forum. Consumer fora, however, have no jurisdiction to grant interim orders pending disposal of a complaint unless expressly authorised by law. The challenge therefore succeeded only in part: the validity objection based on vacancy failed, while the lack of power to grant interim relief was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was illegal and void because it was made by two members without the President when the President's office was vacant. (ii) Whether a consumer forum had jurisdiction to grant interim orders pending disposal of the complaint.

Issue (i): Whether an order of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was illegal and void because it was made by two members without the President when the President's office was vacant.

Analysis: The provisions governing the composition and procedure of the consumer fora were required to be read together harmoniously. Although Section 14(2) and Section 14(2A) contemplated participation and signature of the President where the President was functioning, Section 29A and the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, particularly Rule 6(9) and Rule 6(10), provided for continuity of the State Commission when the office of President was vacant or the President was otherwise unable to function. A construction that rendered the State Commission non-functional merely because the office of President was vacant was rejected as inconsistent with the object of the Act.

Conclusion: The order passed by the two members of the State Commission was not illegal or void solely because the President was not sitting with them.

Issue (ii): Whether a consumer forum had jurisdiction to grant interim orders pending disposal of the complaint.

Analysis: The law declared earlier on the absence of power in a consumer forum to grant interim relief was applied. The interim directions were held to be beyond jurisdiction, and no contrary basis was found to disturb that part of the National Commission's order.

Conclusion: The consumer forum had no jurisdiction to grant interim orders pending disposal of the complaint.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded in part: the finding that the State Commission's order was void was set aside, while the ruling on lack of jurisdiction to grant interim relief was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural provisions governing consumer fora must be construed harmoniously so as to preserve the forum's functioning, and vacancy in the office of President does not by itself invalidate proceedings where the statute and rules provide for continuity; however, consumer fora lack jurisdiction to grant interim orders unless expressly authorised by law.

---