State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri.Awadhbihari S/O Uditnarayan ... vs Shri.Hari Ajabrao Borkar on 17 January, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR First Appeal No. A/14/325 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/03/2012 in Case No. cc/372/2011 of District Nagpur) 1. SHRI.ANIL NILKANTHRAO KADU R/O.81,BHOLEBABA NAGAR,NAGPUR NAGPUR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SHRI.HARI AJABRAO BORKAR R/O.MULPAD-SELU,POST.SAWALI,TAH-HINGANGHAT ,DIST-ARDHA WARDHA ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/14/326 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/03/2012 in Case No. CC/371/2011 of District Nagpur) 1. SHRI.AWADHBIHARI S/O UDITNARAYAN PANDE R/O.PLOT NO.3,SANTOSHIMATA NAGAR,PIPALA ROAD,NAGPUR NAGPUR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SHRI.HARI AJABRAO BORKAR R/O.MULPAD-SELU ,POST.SAWALI,TAH-HINGANGHAT,DIST-WARDHA WARDHA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S B SAWARKAR MEMBER For the Appellant: Advocate Mr S M Kasture For the Respondent: Exparte Dated : 17 Jan 2017 Final Order / Judgement Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Member
1. Both these appeals are filed by two complainants against the two identical orders passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, in two consumer complaints bearing Nos.371/2011 & 372/2011, by which both the complaints have been disposed of giving liberty to both complainants to approach appropriate Court to seek redressal of their grievance.
2. The common case of both the complainants / appellants herein in brief is as under.
The complainant in complaint No.371/2011 purchased two plots bearing Nos.20 & 21 and the complainant in complaint No.372/ 2011 purchased one plot bearing No.22, by paying full consideration of the said plots to the opposite party and they obtained possession of the same from the opposite party. They also obtained unregistered sale-deed / possession letter on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.20/- from the opposite party about the said plots. The opposite party did not execute registered sale-deed in their favour though request was made to him for the same. However, on 25.02.2011 the opposite party published a notice in newspaper "Dainik Navabharat" through advocate Mr Paresh Joshi, informing the general public that the aforesaid plots have been sold to Mr Ashok Rewatkar. On getting that information, the complainants filed aforesaid two complaints before the Forum with identical prayers that the opposite party be directed to execute registered sale-deed of those plots in their favour and the opposite party be restrained from disturbing their possession over the said plots and he be also restrained from alienating the said plots and he be directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainant.
3. The opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed a reply and thereby resisted both the complaints. The opposite party denied that he sold the aforesaid plots to both the complainants and handed over their possession to them. It is the case of the opposite party I brief that the complainants made encroachment on those plots on the basis of false and forged documents and therefore he lodged report at Police Station, Hudkeshwar against them and the police registered crime against them and other persons for the offences committed under Sections 468, 471 & 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Thus, according to the opposite party, the complainants have filed these complaints to grab the aforesaid plots. The opposite party denied his signatures on the aforesaid un-registered sale-deeds / possession letters and submitted that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. He, therefore, requested that the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary cost.
4. The Forum below after hearing both the parties and considering evidence brought on record, passed the two identical impugned orders on 30.03.2012 and thereby disposed of both the complaints giving liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate court. The Forum made identical observations in both the impugned orders that the detail enquiry and evidence is needed in the matter as the opposite party has denied signatures on the alleged unregistered sale-deeds / possession letters and submitted that the said signature is false and forged and the documents are also false & forged. The Forum below, therefore, came to the conclusion that it would not be just & proper to entertain and decide the complaints by it under its summary jurisdiction.
5. We have heard advocate Mr S M Kasture appearing for the appellant in both the appeals. Both the appeals are proceeded exparte against the respondents as they refused to accept the notices of this Commission sent in both appeals.
6. Advocate Mr S M Kasture has submitted that the Forum below erred in disposing of the complaints though the Forum could have decided the complaints only on the basis of documents after comparing admitted signature of opposite party appearing on his reply and the disputed signatures of opposite party appearing on both documents of sale and could have given finding that the said disputed signatures tally with the admitted signature. He, therefore, requested that the impugned order passed in both the appeals may be set aside and both complaints may be allowed.
7. It is seen that before the Forum no request was made by the appellants / original complainants for examination of the disputed signatures and admitted signatures of the opposite party, through handwriting expert. Moreover, it is also not disputed that on the report of the opposite party concerned Police Station registered crime against the complainants for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 & 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), which are relating to committing forgery for cheating and using forged documents and committing cheating with the help of forged documents. Therefore, it is necessary to make enquiry in detail and to have evidence in detail for deciding as to whether the documents relied upon by the appellants / original complainants are either genuine or false and forged documents. The said evidence in detail can be adduced before the Civil Court only after a Civil Suits are filed by the complainants / appellants. Therefore, the Forum has rightly disposed of both the complaints giving liberty to the appellants / original complainants to approach before the Civil Court.
8. At this stage advocate of the appellant submitted that liberty may be given to the appellants to avail the provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act for exclusion of time that occurred in filing of the complaints and appeals.
Accordingly, following order is passed.
ORDER i. Both the appeals bearing Nos. A/14/325 and A/14/325 are dismissed. ii. Both impugned orders are confirmed. iii. Appellants / original complainants are at liberty to make application under Section 14 of Limitation Act and it is for the Civil Court to consider the said applications, if the Civil Suits are filed by the original complainants / appellants before the Civil Court, in accordance with the law. iv. No order as to costs in both these appeals. v. Copy of the order be supplied to both parties free of cost. [HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. S B SAWARKAR] MEMBER