State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Rashpal Singh vs Devendra Prasad(Handwriting Expert), on 27 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.925/2009
Date of institution:11.11.2009
Date of decision :27.11.2009
Sh.
Rashpal Singh, resident of House
No.253, Sector-21-A, Chandigarh.
.Appellant
V E R S U S
Devendra Prasad(Handwriting Expert), R/o House No.619, Sector-8-B, Chandigarh.
.Respondent
Revision Petition against order
dated 8.10.2009 passed by Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh.
Argued
by: Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, advocate for
the revisionist.
BEFORE : Honble
Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President
Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor(Retd), Member
JUDGMENT
27.11.2009 Justice Pritam Pal, President
1. This revision by complainant Rashpal Singh is directed against the order dated 8.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing NO.925 of 2009 for refund of Rs.5500/- paid to Sh.Devendra Prasad as expenses of his being expert witness was dismissed in limine with a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section-26 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum.
2. In nutshell the facts culminated to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus ;
The complainant was a tenant in certain premises and his landlord in 1999 filed an ejectment application under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act in which the complainant was alleged to have been served and on account of his non-appearance he was proceeded against ex-parte. The ejectment order was passed against him on 8.6.2001. The complainant then filed a civil suit for declaration in the year 2002 to the effect that he was never served in the ejectment application and the report about service of summons did not bear his signatures which was forgery and fabrication. In order to get his signatures on the summons compared with his specimen signatures, the complainant engaged the OP who submitted his report to the Civil Court where he was examined on 25.9.2008. His cross examination was deferred. According to the complainant the court record showing the cross examination as deferred was wrong and the cross examination of the OP was recorded by the Civil Judge on 25.9.2008 itself and when he asked the OP to file an affidavit to the effect that he had already been cross examined, the OP refused to file an affidavit and he appeared to have been won over by the landlord. Alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the entire fee of Rs.5,500/- charged by OP for giving the report and Rs. Four lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. The District Consumer Forum after hearing the counsel for complainant and perusing the record came to the conclusion that the complaint was not a fit case for regular hearing and dismissed the same vide order dated 9.7.2009 with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant then filed a revision petition before this Commission wherein vide order dated 8.9.2009 the impugned order dated 9.7.2009 was set aside and the case was remanded back to the District Forum to give the complainant an opportunity of being heard. However, after hearing the representative of complainant, the District Forum vide order dated 8.10.2009 again dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant to pay to OP Rs.10,000/- as compensation under Section-26 of the Consumer Protection Act.
4. We have heard counsel for appellant/complainant and also examined the material placed on the file. The sole point of arguments raised before us by the learned counsel for complainant is that OP was a witness of the complainant in a civil matter pending before the civil court where his examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination was recorded. However, he further submitted that the factum of recording his cross-examination was not mentioned in the interim order recorded by the civil judge. It is on that count that the complainant had asked the OP to furnish his affidavit to the effect that he was cross-examined before the civil court.
Learned District Forum after going through the material placed before it came to the conclusion that in fact cross-examination of OP was never recorded by the civil judge so, it was then held that complainant has failed to show that OP had failed to render the required service as mentioned under Section-2 (O) of the Consumer Protection Act.
5. Apart from this aforesaid observation of the learned District Forum, we after hearing learned counsel for the complainant find that infact the complaint filed before the District Forum and now revision filed before this Commission are misconceived and also not maintainable before any fora under the Act, inasmuch-as it could not be shown as to how the complainant falls under the definition of consumer and at the same time as to how a witness if not towing the line of a litigant, becomes the provider of service. Infact complainant has knocked at the wrong door.
If he had any grievance against the witness summoned by the civil court then same could be redressed only by the civil judge of that court and not by any fora under the Consumer Protection Act.
6. We further go a step forward to hold that even if the complainant was not satisfied with the order passed in that behalf by the civil judge then under the civil law he could approach the higher court i.e. either District Judge or the Honble High court for setting aside any improper or illegal order passed against him by such lower court. More so, we are of the considered opinion that the fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act for deciding the cases between the consumer and the service provider cannot sit over the order/judgment if any passed by the civil court.
7. It would be in the fairness of learned counsel for complainant that during the course of arguments he had relied upon the following judgments and also the provisions of ORDER XVI of Code of Civil Procedure ;
i)Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K.Gupta III(1993)CPJ 7 (SC) ii) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Shiv Kumar Joshi III(1999)CPJ 36(SC)
A perusal of these citations goes a longway to show that same are not relevant at all for the purpose of deciding the above matter in issue before us, inasmuch-as neither the complainant is a consumer, nor, the OP is a service provider, so, no benefit can be derived from the observations made by their lordships in the above said rulings and also the provisions of Order XVI of CPC.
8. Thus, judging from any angle we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated 8.10.2009. In the result, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being frivolous and vexatious with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, U.T.Chandigarh within a month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which Secretary State Legal Services Authority shall be at liberty to initiate execution proceedings for the same as provided under Section-27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Certified copies of this order be communicated to the revision petitioner as well as Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, U.T.Chandigarh. The file be consigned to records.
Sd/-
Announced ( Justice Pritam Pal)(Retd.) 27th Nov.,2009 President Sd/-
(Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor(Retd) Member *Js