MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HONBLE MEMBER These two Appeals u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 bearing Nos. A/1113/2014 and A/1116/2014 have been filed by the OP No. 1 and the Complainant respectively challenging the judgment and order dated 29.8.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas in Complaint Case No. 36 of 2014, directing the Ops to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the flat in question within one month, failing which a penalty of Rs. 50/- per diem will accrue. The Ops were further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost. The facts of the case, as emanating from the materials on records, are, in short, that the Complainant entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 9.1.1998 with the OP No. 3-Developer for purchase of a flat bearing No. 12 on the third floor of the building concerned against a consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Following such Agreement, the Complainant paid the consideration in full and was handed over the possession of the flat in question by the OP No. 3-Developer, but no execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance was completed inspite of repeated requests showing the ground that the Power of Attorney as was executed on 12.5.1997 by the OP No. 1 together with the OP No. 2, owners of the land, in favour of the OP No. 3-Developer was cancelled on 2.9.1997 by OP No. 1 together with OP No. 2, which was communicated to the Developer by a registered letter dt. 17.12.1997 as averred in the Petition of Complaint. With this factual background, the Complainant moved the Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, which passed the order impugned in the aforesaid manner. Aggrieved by such order the OP No. 1 and the Complainant have preferred the Appeals. Both the Appeals have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1-Landowner submits that the judgment and order impugned is invalid as the said judgment and order was signed by only two Members excluding the Honble President, which is contrary to the provisions laid down under Sub Section (2A) of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this connection, the Ld. Advocate refers to a decision of the Honble High Court at Calcutta in Hidustan Lever Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State Consumer Redressal Forum, West Bengal, reported in 1996 (1) CALLT 254 HC. The Ld. Advocate further submits that two Civil Suits, namely, T.S.No. 183 of 2008 and T.S. No. 196 of 1996, are pending before the Honble Court and hence, the present Complaint Case is not maintainable. The Ld. Advocate also submit that as the Power of Attorney authorizing the OP No. 3-Developer to discharge some acts on behalf of the OP No. 1-Landowner along with the OP No. 2-Landowner was cancelled on 2.9.1997 and the Agreement for Sale was executed on 9.1.1998,
i.e. after cancellation of the Power of Attorney, so the Developer has no right to execute the Agreement for Sale and hence, the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum is bad in law. The Ld. Advocate continues that as the OP No. 1 did not receive any consideration from the Complainant, so the OP No. 1 has no obligation to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant. The Ld. Advocate finally concludes that in view of the aforesaid facts and submission, the Appeal by the OP No. 1 should be allowed and the impugned judgment and order be set aside and the Complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant-Purchaser submits that the provisions of Section 22D of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was inserted w.e.f. 15.3.2003 by Amendment Act 62 of 2002, to the effect that if the President of a District Forum, State Commission or National Commission is unable to perform the duties of his office because of absence, then the duties of the President shall be performed by the senior most Member of the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission, clearly suggest that the order, which was signed by the senior most Member along with another Member, but not by the President because of his absence in the proceeding, as in the present case as appearing from the top of the order, is not void as per the statutory provision. The Ld. Advocate further submits that the Civil Suits do not stand in the way of adjudication of the case by the Consumer Fora. In this connection, the Ld. Advocate relies on a decision of the Honble National Commission in Dimple Bawa Vs. Belle Vue Clinic & others, delivered on 11.11.2014 in 1 Appeal No. 882 of 2013.st The Ld. Advocate also submits that when the OP No. 3-Developer, being the agent of the OP No. 1-Landowner, has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest as per provisions of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Ld. Advocate continues that the receipt of consideration by the OP No. 3-Develper, being an agent of the OP No. 1-Landowner under the Power of Attorney, tantamounts to receipt of consideration by the OP No. 1-Landowner and hence, the OP No. 1-Landowner has obligation to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant-Purchaser. The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and submissions the Appeal by the Complainant should be allowed and the impugned judgment and order be modified directing the OP No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the Complainant. We have heard both the sides appearing, considered their rival submissions and perused the materials on records. As to the validity of the impugned judgment and order, we deem it pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 22D of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was inserted w.e.f. 15.3.2003 by Amendment Act 62 of 2002, and the same is reproduced below : - 22D.Vacancy in the Office of the President When the office of President of a District Forum, State commission, or of the National Commission, as the case may be, is vacant or a person occupying such office is, , unableby reason of absence or otherwise to perform the duties of his office, these shall be performed by the senior most member , the State Commission or of the National Commission, as the caseof the District Forum may be: In view of the above-quoted provisions of Section 22D of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the decision of the Honble High Court at Calcutta, which was passed on 15.12.1995, i.e. before insertion of this Section, as relied upon by the Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1-Landowner, is not attracted in view of the Legislative changes. That apart, the Honble Supreme Court in a decision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs. The Accounts Officer, reported in (1996) 1 NSC 1209, held, ..we are of the opinion that the National Commission committed an error in holding that order passed by the two members of the State Commission without the junction of the President is illegal and void. Impugned order to that extent is set aside. Clause -5 of Article V of the Development-Agreement dated 20.3.1997, duly signed by the OP No. 1-Landowner, exhibits that the OP No. 1-Landowner along with other owner, i.e. OP No. 2, duly empowered the OP No. 5-Developer to enter into Agreement for Sale as also to transfer the property involved in the Agreement for Sale out of the Developers allocation and also to receive consideration in respect of the Developers allocation without any further consent from the Owners, and on the strength of such right, the OP No. 3-Developer executed the Sale-Agreement in question. As regards the Civil Proceedings as referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1-Landowner, it may be observed that the Consumer Complaint being a summary trial has to be given precedence over the other cases, be the same Civil or Criminal in nature. In this connection, reliance is placed on a decision of the Honble National Commission in Indrani Chatterjee Vs. AMRI Hospitals, decided on 7.11.2014 in IA No. 1746/2014 which was passed relying on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 622, wherein it was held, As a matter of fact, having regard to the object and intent of the Act, summary trial of Consumer Complaint has to be given precedence over other cases, be it civil or criminal in nature. The question of double jeopardy, self-incrimination or the binding effect of the findings in summary proceedings under the Act, .does not arise on facts, at hand Further, as to the revocation of Power of Attorney, provision of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 appears to be very much pertinent, which is reproduced below : Where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of any express contract, be terminated to the .prejudice of such interest It is well-settled that where an agency is created for valuable consideration and authority is given to secure interest of the agent, the authority cannot be revoked. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Seth Loon Karan Sethiya Vs. Ivan E John & others, reported in AIR 1969 SC 73. The above facts, evidence on records and the discussions lead us to conclude that the submission by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has more force than that of the Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1-Landowner. Accordingly, we are of the view that both the Appeals deserve to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order should be affirmed. Consequently, both the Appeals are dismissed and the impugned judgment and order is affirmed. No order as to costs. This order shall govern both the Appeals bearing No. A/1113/2014 and A/1116/2014. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER