State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahender Nath Sharma vs Inderjeet Singh on 20 March, 2009
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 20.03.2009 Appeal No. FA-09/66 (Arising out of Order dated 12.01.2009 passed by the District Consumer(North), Room No. 2&3, Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No. 94/08) Mahender Nath Sharma Appellant S/o Dr. Lok Nath, In person R/o E-2/74, Chanakya Place-1( 30 Ft. Road), Pankha Road, New Delhi-110059. Versus Mr. Inderjeet Singh Respondent S/o Sh. Gurmukh Singh, H.No.50, Dashmesh Nagar-B, Jail Road, Patiala-147001. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. The main grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 12.01.2009 appears to be the cost of Rs. 3,000/- imposed upon him by the District Forum while dismissing his complaint being frivolous.
2. The grievance of the appellant was that the respondent did not appear in the court as witness in the court for cross examination and therefore he was deficient in service.
3. No doubt, getting the report of the hand-writing/fingerprint expert engaged by the appellant was necessary and for that purpose he made a request to the court for summoning him and the court issued a summon to him for 24.07.08 and the witness appeared and gave his statement. On legal aspect also service of the hand-writing/fingerprint expert was obtained against consideration and his statement came to an end the moment he furnished a report to the appellant. Rest of the procedure was not such that comes within the ambit of deficiency of service.
4. Had hand-writing/finger expert declined the report after receiving the consideration only then he could have been held guilty for deficiency in service. All other aspects like procedure by way of Indian Evidence Act to get the report/statement of hand-writing/fingerprint expert proved and cross examination are such matters which do not come within the consumer dispute.
5. However, we feel that the District Forum was harsh in imposing a cost of Rs. 3,000/- while dismissing the complaint. The appellant was a layman and his grievance as a layman was justified inasmuch as that he has paid the fees to the hand-writing/fingerprint expert and therefore he might have been agitated that the hand-writing/fingerprint expert was not serving the purpose for which his services were engaged.
6. The appeal is allowed and the cost imposed upon the appellant is set aside.
7. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
8. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
14. Announced on 20th day of March, 2009.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc