J.C.DHINGRA vs TIMES GUARANTY FINANCIALS LTD.

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 20th November, 2001, passed by District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2815/99 entitled Shri J.C. Dhingra & Anr. v. THE Managing Director, Times Guaranty Financial Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellants had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, alleging ''deficiency in service'' on the part of the respondents. THE learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that as the complaint filed by the appellants require adjudication in respect of complex and complicated questions of fact, it was not possible to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in summary proceedings before a Redressal Agency, established under the Act. On the basis of the above finding, the learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellants while giving the appellants liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of their grievances. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act before this Commission.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and also have carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The procedure for disposal of complaints under the Act has been laid down in Section 13 of the Act and the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act have been made applicable to the proceedings before the State Commission by virtue of Section 18 of the Act. On a bare reading of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Act, it is apparent that the Statute does not contemplate the determination of complicated issues of facts, involving taking of elaborate evidence and adducing documentary evidence and thereafter a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such evidence. It is no doubt true that the Redressal Agencies established under the Act are vested with the power to examine the witnesses on oath and to order discovery and production of documents, but undoubtedly keeping in view the spirit of the Act, such powers are to be exercised in cases where the issues involved are simple such as the defective quality of any goods purchased, or any short-coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of a service which the respondent has contracted to perform for consideration. Even in such cases, if it appears to the concerned Forum that the issues raised cannot be determined without taking elaborate, oral and documentary evidence, it is open to such Redressal Agency, established under the Act, to decline to exercise jurisdiction and refer the party to his ordinary remedy by way of suit. In our above views we stand fortified by two decisions of the Hon''ble National Commission in cases M/s. Special Machines, Karnal v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC), and B.K. Seth, Managing Director, Indu Video Films (P) Limited v. Chairman, Delhi Financial Corporation & Ors., III (1993) CPJ 327 (NC).

IF the above criterion is applied to the present case, it is noticed by us that the complaint filed by the appellants before the District Forum required adjudication in respect of complicated and complex questions of fact, such as at what price the shares were sold or purchased, the decision of selling or buying the shares at a particular time and price with a view to give maximum return to the investor, whether the accounts were manipulated as alleged, whether the management of the portfolio of the appellants by the respondents was in an unprofessional manner. The above complex and complicated questions, which require taking of elaborate evidence and adducing documentary evidence also and thereafter a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such evidence, decidedly cannot be adjudicated upon satisfactorily by a Redressal Agency, established under the Act. In view of the position explained above, in our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings suffers from no infimity, so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.