UNISCANS AND SONICS LTD. vs BRITISH AIRWAYS

IN this complaint filed, under Section 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a public limited Company claimed a sum of Rs. 3,36,60,556/- as damages in addition to interest @ 18% per annum. It is stated that complainant had taken a term loan from the Punjab Financial Corporation and also from the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation. Working capital loan was obtained from State Bank of Patiala and Punjab National Bank. Term loan was obtained against deposit of title deeds and hypothecation of the titles of plant and machinery and the working limit was obtained from the Banks by way of hypothecation of materials and stocks. It is then alleged that opposite party took possession of the unit of the complainant on account of default of payment and did not restore the possession even after all the dues were paid. Possession of the factory of the complainant was taken on 23.3.1991 under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. When the possession was taken, inventory was prepared by the officers of the Punjab Financial Corporation and those of the complainant. It is then alleged that final settlement both with the Punjab Financial Corporation and Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation was made on 16.12.1992 and all payments due to these institutions were made. Yet Punjab Financial Corporation did not restore possession of the industrial unit back to the complainant. Then the complainant states as to how the efforts were made by it to get back the possession and ultimately writ petition was filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court it being No. Writ Petition No. 18941/1998. In the counter affidavit filed to this writ petition it was the stand of the Punjab Financial Corporation that the industrial unit had been forcibly occupied by the Police and the Guards deployed by them had no access to the premises. It is then submitted that under the orders of the High Court a Local Commissioner was appointed who visited the site and made a report on 24.4.1991. Thereafter, an inventory was also prepared under the supervision of the High Court by the Local Commissioner. That was by the order of the High Court dated 22.2.1999.

THIS complaint was filed on 7.2.2001. Claim has been made for loss on account of gross deficiency in service leading to devaluation of land and the assets of the complainant amounting to Rs. ,36,60,556/-; claim for unauthorised occupation of the premises for eight years @ Rs. 1.50 lakhs per month amounting to Rs. 1.44 crores, claim for restoration of damage caused as per valuation report amounting to Rs. 52,89,140/-, thus making a total claim of Rs. 5,33,49,696/-. Particulars of these claims are mentioned in Annexure P-16 and are as under : (Interest @ 18% p.a. in addition) 3. We do not understand when the complainant is claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Punjab Financial Corporation, why it did not come to us when according to it full payment had been made to the Punjab Financial Corporation by 16.12.1992 but the relief was sought from the High Court in the writ petition filed by the complainant. High Court exercises jurisdiction under the Constitution and had all the powers to grant any compensation to the complainant for any illegal action of the Punjab Financial Corporation. Be that as it may, it is not possible for us to decide this matter in our summary jurisdiction.

COMPLAINT raises complex questions of law and facts and evidence will have to be led and we do not find any admission on the part of the opposite party to accept the stand of the complainant. In the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors., I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) = I (2002) SLT 214 = (2002) 2 SCC 1, a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court observed as under : "Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of rupees sixty lakhs for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the appellant, it is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses. It is, therefore, in any event, not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion. The National Commission was right in giving to the appellant liberty to move the Civil Court. This is an appropriate claim for a Civil Court to decide and obviously, was not filed before a Civil Court to start with because, before the Consumer Forum, any figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay Court-fees. This, in that sense, is an abuse of the process of the Consumer Forum."

WE are also conscious of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant and Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, IV (2002) SLT 714 = III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC) = (2002) 6 SCC 635. Certainly National Commission can decide complex question of facts and law as well, but then that very judgment leaves to the National Commission to consider if it, itself decide the matter. There is already huge pendency of complaints before this Commission right from the year 1993-94. Such types of complaints will certainly derail the process of disposal of old matters. We would, therefore, dismiss the complaint and would leave the complainants to approach Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum including arbitration for seeking relief as claimed in this complaint. In that eventuality complainant may seek exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) = (1995) 3 SCC 583.