State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lakhbir Singh vs Sh.G.S.Cheema, on 31 May, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 202 of 2013 Date of Institution : 17.05.2013 Date of Decision : 31.05.2013 Lakhbir Singh s/o Sh.Jabit S.Chaudhary, R/o H.No.158, Village Kansal, District Mohali, Punjab. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1. Sh.G.S.Cheema, Ex-Chief Flying Instructor, Haryana Institute of Civil Aviation, Pinjore, through Chief Executive Director, Haryana Institute of Civil Aviation, Department of Civil Aviation Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 2. Sh.Kamal Kishore, Executive Director-cum-Chief Flying Instructor, Haryana Institute of Civil Aviation, Department of Civil Aviation Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 3. Sh.Dev Dutt Sharma, Ex-Executive Officer, Haryana Institute of Civil Aviation, Department of Civil Aviation, Haryana, through Advisor, Civil Aviation, Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 4. Sh.Ram Mehar Aggarwal, Ex-Administrative & Publicity Office, o/o Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, Department of Civil Aviation Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 5. Sh.Naresh Kumar, Dy. Superintendent, o/o Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, Department of Civil Aviation Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 6. Sh.K.Bagchi, Ex-Director, Dte. of Training & Licencing, o/o Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, through Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, opposite Safdarjang Airport, New Delhi. 7. Sh.Chanan Ram, Under Secretary, o/o Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, through Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, opposite Safdarjang Airport, New Delhi. 8. The official/officers concerned holding the post of the Secretary, Department of Civil Aviation Haryana, during the pendency of complaint No.411 of 2002 before this Honble Court through Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 9. Sh.Rajiv Arora, Ex-Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, through Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 10. Sh.S.S.Dhillon, Ex-Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, through Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 11. The official/officers concerned holding the post of the Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India through Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, opposite Safdarjang Airport, New Delhi. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (infact under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Lakhbir Singh, appellant in person.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.04.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the application/complaint, under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), filed by the complainant (now appellant), wherein, it was alleged that the Opposite Parties (now respondents) had committed offences, under Sections 191, 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 166, 167, 182, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. At the same time, the District Forum granted liberty to the complainant, to take action against the accused persons, before the Police or any Court of Competent Jurisdiction.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Sh.Lakhbir Singh, complainant, earlier filed the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.411 of 2002, which was decided on 03.04.2003, by the District Forum. In that complaint, the complainant sought directions, against the Opposite Parties, for producing copy of the Guidelines, issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, New Delhi, on the basis of which, his case for issuance of CPL/FRTO licence was denied. In that complaint, the complainant also sought some other allied reliefs. During the pendency of that Consumer Complaint, the complainant was issued FRTO licence, during the month of January 2003. In view of the issuance of FRTO licence, in favour of the complainant, during the pendency of the Consumer Complaint, his prayer, with regard to the supply of a copy of the requirements, for issuance of FRTO licence, became infructuous, whereas, in regard of his prayer, for the production of Guidelines, issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, on the basis of which, his case for issuance of CPL/FRTO was rejected, by not providing the extension of validity period of the lapsed papers, by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Govt. of India, New Delhi, it was found that his application was received by the DGCA on 21.09.1999, and on that date, the validity of the papers had lapsed by 10 months, and, as such, he was not issued CPL. In the complaint, the Opposite Parties had placed, on record, a copy of the letter Annexure A, signed by the complainant, which is reproduced as below :-
I visited DGCA office in Delhi today and met Shri J.K.Sardana, Director Training & Licensing, who heard me in connection with issue of Commercial Pilot Licence (Aeroplane) to me. This refers to his letter to me dated 5.4.2000 in which I was told that I could see him personally. He explained the guidelines being followed in respect of giving extension of validity of pass in written papers and also flight experience.
I have understood the guidelines which were communicated to me vide the aforesaid letter. The guidelines as I understood are 25% of the time limit laid down.
The District Forum also came to the conclusion, that even otherwise Opposite Party No.6 had explained the said Guidelines, in reply to the complainant. The District Forum, further came to the conclusion, that the complainant had also preferred Writ Petition, in the Honble High Court, seeking compensation, on the same cause of action, so the matter being sub-judice, the relief sought for by him, in the prayer Clauses No. 4 to 8 of the complaint, could not be granted. With regard to the corruption charges, leveled against Opposite Party No.7, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that the same were beyond its Jurisdiction, and he (complainant) could seek the appropriate remedy. In these circumstances, the District Forum, in the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.411 of 2002, came to the conclusion, that no further relief was required to be granted to the complainant, and the complaint was ordered to be filed vide order dated 03.04.2003.
3.
The appellant/complainant feeling aggrieved against the order dated 03.04.2003, filed First Appeal, before this Commission, which was dismissed, vide order dated 30.05.2003, copy whereof is Annexure P-38, produced by him.
4. Thereafter, the complainant filed application/ complaint, under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., before the District Forum, on 27.02.2013, i.e. after about ten years of the decision of the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.411 of 2002, against, as many as eleven persons/Officials/Officers, alleging that they forged the letter dated 11.04.2000, enclosed as Annexure A, by the DGCA, alongwith the written statement, before the District Forum, and thereby deliberately misled it (District Forum), so that he could be deprived of his legitimate right of getting CPL.
5. The District Forum, as stated above, dismissed the application/complaint, under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C, filed by the appellant/complainant, vide the impugned order dated 08.04.2013.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
7. We have heard the appellant, in person, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. The appellant, submitted that he came to know, during the Criminal Proceedings, already pending against some of the Opposite Parties, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, that the letter dated 11.04.2000, copy whereof is Annexure-A, was a forged document. He further submitted that since according to Section 13 (5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, every proceedings, before the District Forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding, within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the India Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the District Forum shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 195, and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), it was required of it, to file the complaint, against the Opposite Parties/respondents under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the District Forum, without going into the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the documents, produced, on record, came to the wrong conclusion, that it was not expedient, in the interests of justice to hold an inquiry and file a complaint, under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the District Forum was also wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that since, only a photocopy of the letter dated 11.04.2000, was filed alongwith the written statement, in the Consumer Complaint, there could not be any forgery, in respect of the same (photocopy), as original of the same was never produced. He further submitted that, it was expedient, in the facts and circumstances of the case, on the part of the District Forum, to hold an enquiry, as envisaged by Section 340 Cr.P.C. and file a complaint under Sections 191, 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 166, 167, 182 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, in a Competent Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, against the Opposite Parties/respondents, who forged the document Annexure-A, but it erred, in dismissing the application. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the appellant, and the record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here, that the Consumer Complaint bearing No.411 of 2002, which was filed by the complainant, was decided, as far back as, on 03.04.2003, against the complainant. As stated above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, against that order, before this Commission, was also dismissed, on 30.05.2003. There is nothing, on the record, that the original letter dated 11.04.2000, copy whereof is stated to be Annexure-A, placed at page 60 of the file of the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.411 of 2002, was ever produced by the Opposite Parties/respondents, before it (District Forum), alongwith their written statement. It is settled principle of law, that there can only be a forgery, in respect of the original document, and not in relation to the photocopy thereof. Even otherwise, if the Opposite Parties/respondents, allegedly forged the letter dated 11.04.2000, then the complainant/appellant, must have come to know of such forgery, during the pendency of the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.411 of 2002. Not only this, even the complainant had every opportunity to file a Revision Petition, against the order dated 30.05.2003, passed by this Commission, in the first appeal. Neither the District Forum, in its order dated 03.04.2003, nor this Commission, in the order dated 30.05.2003, passed in the appeal, recorded any finding that the letter dated 11.04.2000, copy whereof is Annexure-A, was, in any way, forged and fabricated. Had any such finding/observation, been given, either by the District Forum or this Commission in appeal, decided on 30.05.2003, the matter would have been different.
10. While deciding the application/complaint, under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., the District Forum which is conferred with the powers of Civil Court, under Section 13(5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C., was required to record a conclusion, that it was expedient, in the interests of justice, to hold an inquiry therein, and, thereafter, file the complaint. The District Forum was also required to record a conclusion, that the proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., under taken, at the instance of a private person were clearly, in the interests of the State, and it was reasonably certain to result into a conviction. The District Forum, was, right in coming to the conclusion, that since there was no sufficient material, on the record, especially in the absence of production of the original letter dated 11.04.2000, in the Consumer Complaint, in respect whereof, the forgery had been alleged, it was not expedient, in the interests of justice, to hold inquiry and file a complaint against the Opposite Parties/ respondents. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was also right in coming to the conclusion, that there was no sufficient material, on the record, to come to the conclusion, that offences claimed by the complainant, were statedly committed by the respondents. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. The submission of the appellant, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
11. Not only this, the appellant/complainant, in paragraph number 5 of the application/complaint, under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., stated that, in respect of the candidates, who used fake domicile certificates, to get the flying training at Pinjore Aerodrome, a high level enquiry was entrusted to the SSP, Chandigarh, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, vide order dated 24.07.2012. It was also stated by the applicant/ complainant, in paragraph no.31 of his application/ complaint, that a criminal case, on the subject matter of issuance of CPL, by fraud to Sh.Dinesh Bansal (who is presently working as Junior Pilot, with Haryana Govt. and fly for VIPs of Haryana), was pending against the accused persons, in the Court of Sh.T.P.S. Randhawa, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, U.T., Chandigarh. Not only this, Civil Writ Petition No.5925 of 1997 on the same subject matter, against the State of Haryana, through its Secretary, was also filed, which was disposed of by the High Court. Other Writ Petitions were also filed by the appellant/complainant, almost relating to the said subject matter, which too were disposed of, by the High Court. Criminal cases, as per the admission of the appellant/complainant, are already pending, before the Criminal Court(s), almost relating to the same subject matter. In such circumstances, the District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion, that it was not expedient, in the interests of justice, to hold an inquiry and file a criminal complaint. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.
12. No other point, was urged, by the appellant.
13. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of record and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
May 31, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg