STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Avtar Singh S/o Sh.Karam Singh, R/o H.No.2026, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

 ……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1.           

2.           stnd

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

2.            

3.           

4.           , by issuing three different Policies, on the, taking benefit of his ignorance and simplicity.  

5.           

6.           

7.           

8.           

9.            

10.        

11.         

12.        

13.        require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents, and supporting oral evidence, and, as such,

14.        n, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and, a case decided by a three member Bench of   , there was a dispute, about the disclosure of information, incorporated     , it was held that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents, and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter. It was further held that the questions of forgery/fraud, cheating and conspiracy, could be satisfactorily resolved, by the Civil Court. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in

15.        Since, the disputed and complex questions of fact and law, are involved in the complaint, as to whether mis-representations/wrong assurances, while selling the Policies, aforesaid, were made by the Agent of the Opposite Parties; whether any fraud was committed n our considered opinion, for proving such allegations ofthorough analysis of voluminous documents, and elaborate examination of the witnesses, and their cross-examination, is required. Such disputed and complex questions/facts, therefore, could not be adjudicated upon, by the Consumer Fora, proceedings before which are summary, in nature. It was not that mere allegations ofreferred to above, were levelled by the complainant, against the Opposite Parties, but he also attempted to prove the same, by way of filing affidavit, in the shape of evidence. Opposite Party No.1, on the other hand, vehemently denied the same, and also attempted to disprove the same, by way of affidavit, in the shape of evidence. Thus, only the Civil Court could decide such disputed and complex questions of fact and law.The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

16.        

17.        

18.        complainant shall be at liberty, to resort to any other legal remedy, which may be available to him, for redressal of his grievance, under the provisions of law.

19.        Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

20.        

Pronounced.

05/11/2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Rg