State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Aitha Rajyalaxmi, W/O.Late ... vs M/S.Sri Ram Chits Pvt. Ltd. Warangal. on 29 November, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. RP.No.64/2012 against IA.No.97/2012 in CC. No.119/2011 District Consumer Forum, Warangal. Between: Aitha Rajyalaxmi, W/o.late Mruthynjayam, Age : 55 years, Occ: Household & Business, R/o.H.No.6-8, Hasanparthy Village & Mandal, Warangal District. Revision Petitioner/Complainant. And M/s.Sri Ram Chits Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Warangal. Respondent/Opp.Party. Counsel for the Revision Petitioner : Mr. M. Hari Babu. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.K.Rajeswar Rao. QUORUM: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE.
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President) ******* Heard both sides.
This revision is preferred by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Warangal dismissing her application to send agreements dated 22.09.2009 and 29.01.2010 to an expert for comparison of signatures of the deceased subscriber with the admitted signatures.
During the course of enquiry, complainant filed a petition u/Sec.45 of the Evidence Act to send the two documents 1) agreement creating lien in favour of foreman by self against personal loan No.NRPLWN 109901321 dated 22.09.2009, and 2) agreement creating lien in favour of foreman by self against the P.L.No.NRTFWN 100098E/10 dated 29.1.2010, to an expert for comparison of signatures of the deceased subscriber with the admitted signatures on the ground that they were forged, created and brought on record for the purpose of the case.
The opposite party resisted the petition on the ground that the complainant did not approach with clean hands and she suppressed the material facts. The petition was filed only to create ambiguity and therefore, requested the same be dismissed.
The District Forum after considering the contentions opined that the question raised by the complainant was vexatious and that it has no jurisdiction since it had to determine the matter summarily.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the revision contending that the District Forum ought to have sent the documents to an expert which would enable it to render complete justice in the matter.
The point for consideration is whether there is any material irregularity in the order of the District Forum?
Since the very complainant contends that the documents which the opposite party rely were created, obviously the said fact has to be investigated, lest injustice would be caused. In the decision relied by the District Forum reported in 2012 (2) CPR 293 (NC) in Prahlad Sharma Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance considering the facts in the said case, the National Commission said that disputed questions of facts cannot be agitated. It is only Civil Court that is competent. Equally the National Commission in the decision M/s. Shree Shridharkrupa Builders & Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Kamal Shrawan Rajgujru reported in 2012 NCJ 794 (NC) opined that when genuineness of receipt can be ascertained only with the help of handwriting expert, it has to be sent for opinion. Since the agreements are in dispute, the above decision squarely applies. We do not see how the decision relied by the learned counsel for the respondent in this regard is applicable. Considering the fact that the complainant disputes these documents filed by the Finance Company, we are of the opinion that the documents have to be sent to an expert for comparison with the admitted signatures.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the District Forum is directed to send the documents referred in the application to handwriting expert to compare with the admitted signatures of the deceased subscriber. Both parties are directed to file documents containing signatures of the deceased subscriber in order to enable the District Forum to send the same to handwriting expert. The complainant has to borne out the expenses for submitting the opinion by the expert.
With this observation, the revision is ordered.
_______________________ President ______________________ Member ______________________ Member Dt:29.11.2012.
Vvr.