AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 266 wordsV.Balakrishna Eradi, President
-WE are unable to agree with the view taken by the State Commission that this is a complicated case which can be satisfactorily adjudicated upon only by a competent civil Court. Having gone through the records, we consider that this is a case involving simple facts which can be adjudicated after taking evidence before the Forum and there is no justification for the parties being denied an adjudication by the Consumer Forum. As pointed out in Orders already passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 96 of 1990, S.K. Abdul Sukur v. State of Orissa decided on 5.4.1991, First Appeal No. 50 of 1991 Sushila Gautam v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 8.10.1991 and Revision Petition No. 7 of 1991 S. Bhagat Singh v.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 3.11.1991the mere fact that oral evidence will have to be adduced and certain disputed issues of fact have to be determined will not constitute adequate ground or declining to adjudicate on the dispute. The Order passed by the State Commission dismissing the complaint petition on the ground that the party should pursue the matter only before a civil Court is hereby set aside and the case is demanded to the State Commission for adjudication on merits in accordance with law in the light of what we have stated above.
It need hardly be stated that both parties should be given full and fair opportunity to adduce whatever evidence they want to place before the State Commission and to address arguments. The parties will bear their respective costs. Order set aside.