National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shiv Kumar Agarwal vs Arun Tondon And Anr. on 19 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: II(2007)CPJ321(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
2. Vide order dated 11.1.2007, the District Forum passed the following order:
On 8.1.2007 argument of learned Advocates of the parties was heard and along with that, argument on the application of complainants for examination by Hand Writing Expert was also heard. Forum has perused all the facts. In the opinion of Forum it appears necessary to pass order on the application for examination by Hand Writing Expert before delivering final judgment. Complainants have filed this application on this ground that opposite party has not admitted account sheets to be in his handwriting and has stated that these documents are incomplete, fabricated and are not in handwriting. Hence the examination by Hand Writing Expert is necessary in order to see as to whether these documents are in the pen of opposite party or not. Opposite party has filed written objection and has argued that examination by Hand Writing Expert is not necessary because opposite party is not a registered share broker. Disputed documents are very material in this case and case of complainants is based on this. Hence unless it is ascertained as to whether the disputed documents are in the pen of opposite party or not, the final disposal of this case cannot be done judicially. In the opinion of Forum application of complainants is fit to be allowed.
Complainant's application dated 1,8.2006 is allowed and complainants are directed to get the disputed documents examined by Hand Writing Expert and submit the report within a month. Opposite party is directed to give sample of his hand writing in the Forum in presence of both the Advocates. Put up the case on 5th February, 2007 for further steps.
3. Against this a revision petition was filed before the State Commission. State Commission passed the following order:
Two points have been urged by Shri D.K. Tandon the learned Advocate for the revisionist.
1. Complaint is not maintainable.
2. Elaborate evidence will be required in this case which includes the opinion of expert and for taking such evidence , Consumer Forum is not competent. Sri Tandon has also placed the judgement dated 18.12.2006 of this Commission and the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court, 2006 ALR SC.
Sri Arun Tandon is present on behalf of respondent. His argument is that revisionist had filed an appeal before the Commission and in Appeal No. 858/2006 the Commission after consideration remanded the case with direction to decide the case after giving opportunities of hearing to both the parties and also gave opportunity to file written statement and evidence by both the parties. Hence it cannot be said that complaint is not maintainable in the Forum.
From the perusal of file it is evident that respondents are investors, hence it is clear that their status is that of consumers. Hence they can pray for reliefs in the consumer agency. We do not agree with this contention of Sri D.K. Tandon the learned Advocate that consumer agency has no jurisdiction to take evidence and give judgment after appraisal in cases where elaborate evidence is required. In the two rulings which has been filed by revisionist there is no such pronouncement that consumer agency cannot decide such cases and cannot dispose of the complaint after taking elaborate evidence from both the parties.
Hence in the circumstances, there is no force in the revision petition of revision petitioner. No delay be caused in the disposal of complaint. The Forum is also directed to dispose of the complaint in question without delay.
As per above findings the revision petition is dismissed. The Forum is also directed to dispose of the complaint in question without any delay.
4. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us.
5. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Like before the State Commission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued before us that this case involves complicated questions of fact and law and will need expert evidence, which is not possible in the summary procedure adopted by the Consumer Fora. After seeing the complaint, written version as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant and Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi , and other catena of judgments, we are of the view that Consumer Forum, which is headed by Senior Judicial Officers, are capable of dealing with even complex questions. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under Section 13 provides for calling for expert evidence, if necessary.
6. Keeping in view the point at issue, we see no merit in this revision petition, hence dismissed.