State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ashok Kumar Son Of Sh.Mani Ram vs Subhash Chander Son Of Mani Ram on 18 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.148 of 2009
Date of institution : 10.02.2009
Date of decision : 18.11.2009
Ashok Kumar son of Sh.Mani Ram, resident of 1096, Kucha Nakada, Katra
Safaid, Amritsar now resident of High Way Complex, Dhagu By Pass Road
Pathankot, District Gurdaspur.
...Appellant
Versus
Subhash Chander son of Mani Ram, resident of 1096, Kucha Nakada
Katra Safaid, Amritsar.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
11.12.2008 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Ashok Kumar (in person) For the respondent : Sh.Subhash Chander (in person) LT.COL.DARSHAN SINGH (RETD.) MEMBER The appellant / complainant (Ashok Kumar) alleged that he purchased a Mahindra Jeep (Marshal) from his younger brother Subhash Chander (respondent / opposite party) and paid Rs.80,000/- cash for the said deal. As per the agreement dated 19.7.2008, the respondent was responsible for any deficiency in the condition of the vehicle or the documents. The respondent also assured the appellant that in case of any difficulty in transfer of the said vehicle, he would render assistance / help to First Appeal No.148 of 2009 2 the complainant for the same. The complainant further alleged that he spent Rs.18,000/- for the repair of the vehicle which the opposite party was liable to pay as per the above agreement. When the opposite party failed to pay the repair charges to the complainant, the complainant filed a complaint with the District Forum, Amritsar and prayed for the following relief:-
i) Rs.18,000/- spent on the repairs etc. of the vehicle.
ii) Rs.5000/- for harassment.
iii) Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The opposite party in reply submitted that the complainant who was the elder brother of the opposite party, was a very claver and cunning person. He is a habitual offender and had cheated and defrauded many persons. Many court cases were pending against him in different courts of law.
3. The opposite party denied having sold the vehicle in question to the complainant or having executed any agreement in this regard as alleged by the complainant. The alleged agreement produced by the complainant was false, forged and fabricated document. The complainant also got the RC of the jeep transferred in his name by forging documents and signatures of the opposite party. The opposite party further submitted that the said vehicle was never sold to the complainant. The complainant visited him on 20.7.2008 and wanted to try and test this vehicle, which the opposite party had purchased earlier from one Lakhwinder Kaur for Rs.72,000/-. The complainant being brother of the opposite party was allowed to try / test the vehicle, but he along with the vehicle ran away from Amritsar and did not turn up after that. The opposite party when approached the complainant for return of the vehicle, the complainant threatened and abused the opposite party and refused to return the said First Appeal No.148 of 2009 3 vehicle, and forcibly kept the same in his possession and treated forged documents to get the vehicle transferred in his name.
4. The opposite party further submitted that the complicated questions of law and facts were involved in this dispute and lengthy procedure of evidence etc. was required and the complaint could not be adjudicated in a summary proceedings in the District Forum and only civil court had jurisdiction in this matter. The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Parties led evidence in support of their respective version by way of affidavits and documents.
6. After considering the version of the parties and having perused the documents brought on record, the learned District Forum observed that allegations and counter allegations of cheating and fraud were involved in this case and the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to decide such disputes. The complaint, accordingly was dismissed with liberty to the parties to avail their remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. While deciding the complaint, the District Forum considered and relied on the following judgements:
i) III(2004) CPJ 407 (UT Chandigarh) Kamaljit Kaur Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
ii) 1997(1) CPC Page 64 (Punjab) Smt. Parvinder Kaur and others Vs. Union Bank of India.
iii) 2006(iv) CPJ (SC) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel
iv) 1(2004) CPJ (NC) RD Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
7. Hence the appeal.
First Appeal No.148 of 2009 4
8. We have gone through the detailed order of the District Forum, perused the record brought on file and considered the version of both the parties.
9. The complainant purchased a Mahindra Jeep vehicle from the opposite party (who is the real brother of the complainant) on the basis of some alleged agreement dated 19.7.2008 which has been challenged by the opposite party being forged and fabricated document having not been executed and signed by the opposite party. It has been further alleged by the opposite party that the complainant had committed cheating and fraud with him and he was forcibly keeping the vehicle with him and had created false and forged documents. The complainant never purchased the said vehicle from the opposite party nor opposite party had ever sold the same to the complainant. There are allegations and counters allegations of cheating and fraud involved in this case. The complainant also submitted a list of 8 witnesses, who could be summoned and cross examined in support of his version of the complaint.
10. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments that the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 are summary in nature and the proceedings before the Fora are finalised by filing of affidavits / documents and no lengthy procedure of summoning and cross examining the witness is required as is done in Civil Courts. The nature of dispute in the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down above i.e. 2006(iv) CPJ(SC) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel. The present dispute involves allegations of cheating, forgery and fraud which involves complex questions of low and facts needing voluminous and expert evidence. The proceedings before the District Forum and before the State Commission being in summary in nature, such issues can not be decided in summary proceedings. First Appeal No.148 of 2009 5
11. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we affirm the findings and order of the District Forum and dismiss the appeal, with liberty to the parties to avail their remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
12. The order in this case was reserved on 3.11.2009. Now the parties be communicated about the same.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Lt. Col. Darshan Singh-Retd.) Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member November 18, 2009.
Davinder