RABINDRANATH ROY vs SAMIR MUKHERJEE

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 10.9.1998 passed by Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I, refusing to adjudicate the dispute on the ground that examination of detailed evidence would be required. The Forum observed that the complainant may move the appropriate Civil Court for remedy, if so advised and if not otherwise barred in law. The Forum further mentioned that they did not give any finding on the merit of the case.

THE legality and propriety of this order has been challenged in appeal. It is submitted by the appellant that the Forum was not justified in not determining the dispute between the parties. What happened in this case is that the complainant made over two Computer Machines to the opposite party for repair. The allegation is that the opposite party did not make repair and in consequence he lost his face before the Eastern Railway to whom the Computers belonged. He alleged that he has suffered loss in business in consequence thereof.

The opposite party raised various objections. One of the objections was that the case required elaborate evidence and as such it should not be tried by the Forum. They mention that the Computers did not belong to the complainant but they belonged to the Eastern Railway. The complainant acts as a contractor for repairing the Computers. According to the complainant he made over two Computers to the opposite party for inspection and thereafter he participated in tender called by the Eastern Railway for repairing one of them. The case of the complainant, however, is that after getting the job he asked the opposite party verbally to repair the Computers. But since the opposite party did not comply with his request he issued a formal letter placing the order. The machines were not allegedly repaired by the opposite party. The complainant took back the machines from the possession of the opposite party. It is noticed that there are several allegations and counter-allegations. The Forum noticed that the case is required to be established by cogent evidence before the complainant could succeed. The complainant speaks of oral contract initially. He states that formal order was placed after this tender was accepted by the Railway. Moreover, there is dispute with regard to the number of machines that were made over to the opposite party for repair. Moreover, whether or not the machines were repaired requires evidence if expert in computer technology. It appears from the impugned judgment that the Forum had gone into all the aspects of the matter and came to a clear finding that resolution of the dispute requires examination of detailed evidence. We find nothing to differ with the view taken by the Forum. In our opinion, the appeal is without any merit and as such it is liable to be dismissed which we hereby do.

THE appeal be dismissed on contest but without cost. Appeal dismissed.