AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 5.2.91 passed by the District Forum, Banner, Camp Balotra in complaint Case No. 26/91 by which the complaint was dismissed. Facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be noticed. The complainant got his stock of goods insured with Opp. Party No. 2, Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Balotra. Cover Note No. J.R./88 No. 048534 was issued. The period of insurance was from 1.8.89 to 31.7.90. The complainant alleged that there were floods in Luni river in Balotra on 6.7.90. The flood water entered in the business premises. The stock of goods lying there was damaged. Suvery was done. The sum assured was Rs. 3,00,000/-. According to the complainant damage caused to the stock was Rs. 54,715/-. The surveyor reproted that the loss caused to the complainant was Rs. 33,870/-. As the claim was not settled, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum, Banner Camp Balotra on 15.11.91 praying that the amount of loss assessed by the surveyor amounting to Rs. 33,870/- and interest together with compensation @ Rs. 1,000/-per month may be awarded to him.
THE Opp. Parties opposed the complaint on various grounds. An objection was taken that the flood water did not enter the factory and, therefore the Opp. Parties are not liable to indemnify the complainant. THE policy issued to the complainant was Policy ''C for he did not pay any premium for policy ''A'' and therefore, after investigation, at the higher level the claim was rejected and as such the petition for claim can only be heard by Civil Court and not by a Redressal Forum under the Act. A detailed enquiry was necessary in the claim by production of documents etc. Which cannot be done in a summary inquiry. THE complainant submitted a rejoinder reiterating the facts stated in the complaint and controverting the averments made in the version of the case. THE District Forum came to the conclusion that the complaint cannot be adjudicated upon in a summary inquiry under the Act. It observed as under:- "ATTA ISH PRAKARAN MAI DONO PAKSH DWARA SANKHA PRASTUTE KA JANA HAI OUR USHKE ANTARGAT JATIL VIDHIKAWAM THATYAMAK PARASHNA NIHIT HAI, JINKA AVDHARAN KIYA JANA HAI. KRAORA TAX INDUSTRIES VIRUDH CHAIRMAN, INSURANCE CO. NIRNAY KE ANTARGAT RAJYA AYOG DWARA YEH NIRDHARIT KIYA GAYA HAI KI PARVAD MAIN JATIL PARASHNA NIHIT HONA PER ENKI VISTRIT VIVECHANA KI AVASKYTA PARTI HAI AUR ISH KARAN AYSHA PARIVAD ISH ADHINIYAM KE ANTARGAT CHALNA YOGYA NAHI HAI. YEHI MAT RAJYA AYOG DWARA M/S. PRADEEP MICHING WORKS KE VIRUDH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. ME DIYA GAYA HAI. ATTA IN NIRNAYO KE PRAKASH ME YEH PRAKARAN ME YEH PRAKARAN ISH ADHINIYAM KE ANTARGAT SANDHARAN YOGYA NAHI HAI."
Aggrieved the complainant has come up in appeal Service was presumed to be sufficient on the parties vide ordersheet dated 24.12.92. Today, on behalf of the respondents Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Counsel has appeared. Resort was made to Rule 8(6) of the Consumer Protection (Raj.) Rules, 1987. We have carefully considered the grounds of appeal and the order under appeal. After hearing the learned Counsel for the respondents, we have come to the conclusion that the order dismissing the complaint cannot be sustained. M/s. Special Machines Kamnl v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC) was considered by the National Commission in S.K. Abdul Sukur v. State of Orissa & Others II (1991) CPJ 202 (NC). The following observations were made in paras 5 & 6 of the report. "The mere fact that 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 the 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 the summoning and enforcing attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, the discovery and production of documents and other materials produceable 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. Unless a Redressal Forum constituted under the Act finds after careful scrutiny of the pleadings and the documents etc. relied on by the parties that a satisfactory adjudication of the matter cannot be conducted by it in proceedings under the Act because of the exceptionally complicated nature of the factual and legal issues involved, it will not be just or proper to decline to adjudicate upon a complaint filed by an aggrieved consumer. The question whether or not there was negligence on the part of the Opp. Parties in relation to the performance of a particular item of service is not by itself too complicated to be determined by the Redressal Forums coastituted under the Act on a consideration of the relevant oral and documentary evidence. If jurisdiction is declined by the Special Redressal Forums set up under the Act in all such cases on the mere ground that examination and cross-examination of witnesses whould be necessary. It would amount to unjust denial of the benefits of the Act to the aggrieved consumer by erroneous abdication of its jurisdiction by the Forums."
"It is true that in M/s. Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. O.P. No. 32 of 19891 (1991) CPJ 78 this Commission did decline to adjudicate upon the disputes brought before it and referred the complaint to the remedy by way of suit. But that was an exceptional case where transactions of borrowings from banks extending over a long period of many years in different accounts were sought to be re-opened on allegations of fraud misappropriation manipulation of accounts, violation of banking norma etc. This Commission found after its preliminary examination of the case that the issues arising therein could not be satisfactorily adjudicated upon without elaborate scrutiny and rendition of accounts in relation to transactions of borrowing which the complainant had with the respondent Bank under different heads spread over a long period of many years, the observations contained in the order passed by this Commission in that case have to be understood against the background of the special facts relating there to which were of an exceptional nature. The said decision is not be understood as laying down any general preposition that in all cases where the examination and cross-examination of witnesses is involved the proper forum for adjudication of the dispute is only the Civil Court. Another important point that weighed with this commission in the M/s. Special Machines case was that the subject matter of the complaint in that case was already sub-judice in suit pending before the Civil Court and there was a clear overlapping and intertwining of the. questions arising for determination in the suits and those sought to be adjudicated in the complaint. It was under these special circumstances that the complaint therein was referred by this Commission to pursue his remedy by way of suit."
I (1991) CPJ 508 (NC) was considered by the National Commission in various cases. The position now is that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 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 case may require and that if after a careful scrutiny of the pleadings, documents etc. relied on by the parties that a satisfactory adjudication on the matter cannot be conducted by it in proceedings under the Act because of the exceptionally complicated nature of the factual and legal issues involved, it will not be just or proper to decline to adjudicate a complaint filed by an aggrieved consumer. The question whether or not there was negligence on the part of the Opp. Parties in relation to the performance of service cannot be said to be too complicated to be determined by the Redressal Forum constituted under the Act on the consideration of the oral and documentary evidence.
Having considered the material on record we find that the District Forum was in error in declining to adjudicate upon the merits of the complaint. The order of the District Forum dated 5.2.91 is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded to the District Forum, Banner Camp Balotra for fresh determination under law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and keeping in view the provisions of Sec. 14(2) & (2A) of the Act.
THE appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. As the appellant has not appeared, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.