SIMAR SINGH SAWHNEY vs ZONAL MANAGER, UNIT TRUST OF INDIA

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against order dated 10.7.2002, passed by District Forum (New Delhi), Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/2785/1998 - entitled Shri Simar Singh Sawhney v. Zonal Manager, Unit Trust of India. THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Shri Simar Singh Sawhney, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had purchased 50,000 units of the Unit Trust of India (Mastergain) through M/s. N.R. Investors, New Delhi and the same were forwarded by the broker to Datamatics Financial Services Ltd., Bombay for being transferred in the name of the appellant in the month of March, August and September, 1995. It was stated that out of the 50,000 units purchased by the appellant, the appellant received only 37,200 units and the balance 12,800 units were not delivered whereas the respondent was required to transfer the units within a reasonable time of 15-20 days. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the appellant had claimed a sum of Rs. 3,77,520/- as detailed in para 5 of the complaint together with interest at the rate of 24 percent p.a. and the cost of litigation from the respondent.

THE claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent. In the reply/written version filed on behalf of respondent, it was stated that out of 12,200 units, alleged to have been not received by the appellant they had sent 4,500 units for verification of signatures. It was stated that in respect of 1,500 units the signatures of the sellers were not tallying with the signatures on the records of the respondent and hence the same were returned to the appellant. In respect of another 1,800 units, received twice there was variation in the signatures of the seller and hence a notice was sent to the seller in respect of those units. It was further stated that in respect of 2,000 units, the same were not received on transfer from the appellant and the same had been transferred and repurchased or bought back by various buyers or by the original holder of those certificates (units). It was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that as the complaint involves adjudication in respect of complicated questions of fact requiring detailed examination of witnesses and documents, the same could not be adjudicated satisfactorily by a redressal agency established under the Act because the procedure to be followed by a Consumer Forum is summary in nature. The learned District Forum has disposed of the complaint giving a direction to the appellant to approach the appropriate Civil Court, if so advised. The operative portion of the order being impugned in the present proceedings reads as under : "From the above complaint and reply filed by the O.P. we find that these allegations and counter replies regarding the genuineness of signatures of the original holders as well that of the person who lodged the shares need detailed examinations to arrive at a conclusion, it will also call for examination of witnesses and documents. In the summary procedure followed in the Consumer Forum it will not be possible to do the same. Hence the complainant is directed to approach appropriate Civil Court, if so advised. Time spent in this Forum will not be counted in determining the limitation for filing suit in Civil Court."

Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of present appeal and have also 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 under 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/expert 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 - Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank, I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC), and B.K. Sethi, Managing Director, Indu Video Films (P) Ltd. v. Chairman, Delhi Financial Corpn., III (1993) CPJ 327 (NC).

IN the present case also, complex and complicated questions of facts are involved as to whether in fact the appellant had lodged 50,000 units of Unit Trust of INdia (Mastergain) with the respondents for being transferred in favour of the appellant; and as to whether in respect of certain certificates (units), the signatures of the original holders of the units were not tallying with those on the record of the respondent. The above mentioned questions of facts are complicated and complex questions which decidedly cannot be adjudicated properly by a redressal agency established under the Act because proceedings before such an agency established under the Act are summary in nature where evidence is adduced by the parties by means of affidavits. In view of the position explained above, the order being impugned in the present proceedings suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The same, as a matter of fact, is a well-reasoned order which takes due care of the interest of both the parties. 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.