PRATAP C. BALANI vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation

BOTH these appeals are against the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation hereinafter referred to as ''G.I.D.C.''. The same question having arisen in both the appeals, same are dealt with together and common order is passed.

THE appellants are original complainants who had registered the plot in the G.I.D.C. and the remaining payment has to be made on instalments. Facts of the appeal no. 73 are as under. The complainant was allotted an Industrial Plot No. 36 on 20.10.80 by G.I.D.C. The allegation is that the G.I.D.C. had to develop industrial activities and to promote Industries by making proper arrangement for the same. The G.I.D.C. had to develop amenities like electricity, roads, banks etc. The price being paid to them was on account of these facilities which may be made available to the complainants. The G.I.D.C. had given advertisement in the newspaper regarding the infrastructure to be established at Rajkot, Junagadh Veraval etc. On the basis of this advertisement the complainants booked the plots. Though the period of 4 years have passed no infrastructure has been established and only plots are there. The complainant wanted to establish an industry but the opposite party has not provided the facilities for the same and, therefore, it is totally impossible for him to install machinery etc. The further allegations are that the complainant was led away by false advertisement promising to provide various facilities, and by such an advertisement the complainants have booked the plots. The complainants have, therefore, prayed that the Court may direct die G.I.D.C. to provide promised facilities.

The District Forum after hearing the par- ties has come to the conclusion that in the instant cases the Forum shall have to record evidence, to take voluminous documentary evidence on record etc. and relying upon the decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in M/s Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank reported in I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC)=1991 (2) CPR 34. came to the conclusion that this case falls within the ambit of that decision and, there- fore, the complaint before the District Forum was not maintainable and party should be relegated to the Civil Court.

THE next ground on which the complaint has been rejected is that, the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted under Section 14. We are of the opinion that the District Forum is not right in rejecting the complaint. The District Forum had jurisdiction to decide a consumer dispute and there is no prohibition to take oral evidence or to take documents on record. The dispute between the parties was in respect of not providing facilities as advertised by the G.I.D.C. Whether such an advertisement amounts to unfair practice or providing of the service was compulsory and, therefore, the complainants were deprived of the service are the questions which can be decided by the District Forum by taking oral evidence also. The judgment in case of M/s. Special Machine v. Punjab National Bank has not been followed by the Hon''ble National Commission In the case of Shardaben N. Patel v. Gujarat Gas Suppliers I (1992) CPJ 225 (NC)=First Appeal No. 137/91 and in the case of L.I.C. v. Shri Bhavanam Shrinivas Reddy reported in II (1991) CPJ page 189 (NC). the Hon''ble National Commission has observed as under. "The mere fact mat witnesses may have to be examined and their cross-examination may also be necessary is not by itself a valid ground for refusing adjudication of the dispute before die Redressal Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act".

IT is to be remembered that the very purpose for which the statute has to be enacted is to provide a cheap and speedy remedy to aggrieved consumers by way of an alternative to the time consuming and expensive process of civil litigation. Section 13(4) of the Act the provisions of which are made applicable to the State Commission by Section (18) specifically invests the Redressal Forums with the powers vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of me summoning and enforcing attendance of witnesses and examining in them on oath, the discovery and production of documents and other materials producable as evidence, the reception of evidence on affidavits, the issuing of commissions for the examination of any witness etc. The statute thus clearly contemplates that the Redressal Forums constituted under it are to decide cases filed before them after taking such oral and documentary evidence as the circumstances of any given case may require. If the jurisdiction is declined by special Redressal Forums set up under the Act, in all such cases on the mere ground that examination and cross examination of witnesses would be necessary, it would amount to denial of the benefits of the Act to the aggrieved consumer by erroneous abdication of it''s jurisdiction by the Forums. In the instant case our opinion, though it may be necessary to take oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, it will not be so difficult or such a complicated matter that the District Forum cannot decide satisfactorily. This is a matter where numerous persons are concerned. G.I.D.C. is rendering the services and it is, therefore, desirable that the persons who have booked the plots should not be deprived of the inexpensive remedy provided by the Act. They have right to have recourse to this cheap remedy. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the rejection of the complaints is not proper. The District Forum has the powers and jurisdiction to award damages. Therefore, there is no question of relief which cannot be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Act. The case should be remanded to the District Forum to decide in accordance with the law. ORDER The appeals are allowed. The Judgment of the District Forum is set aside and the District Forum is directed to decide the case in accordance with law, after giving opportunities to the parties to produce evidence if any including oral evidence. Since the complainant is not present we have not passed any order regarding cost in this case. Appeals allowed.