Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/109/2014

Bhushan Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

EX Officier MC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Sanjeev Chopra

30 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                          Consumer Complaint No.109 of 2014

                                                                 Date of institution:  13.08.2014                                                                         Date of decision  :   30.04.2015

Bhushan Sood s/o Sh. Ram Saran Sood r/o Mandi Gobindgarh, presently r/o Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

2. Municipal Council, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, through Executive Officer.

   …..Opposite Parties

   Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

   Quorum

   Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.                                                          Smt. Veena Chahal, Member.

   Present :   Sh.Sanjeev Chopra, Adv. Cl. for the complainant                                              Sh.Naveen Verma, Adv. Cl. for the OPs.

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                   The ld. counsel for the complainant has filed an application for production of judgment relied by the OPs, passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, whereby the Policy in dispute, vide which the OPs had offered the complainant to purchase the said shop No.44 with roof at the rate of ½ of Rs.3,34,400/-, was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. Upon notice the ld. counsel for the OPs appeared and placed on record the copy of the judgment dated 13.03.2002, Hari Mittak Vs. The State of Punjab, C.W.P No.4511 of 2001. He pleaded in his reply that the present complaint is not maintainable in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced for reference “ all proceedings emanating there from are declared illegal. It is also declared that that the council and all other municipal bodies I the State shall be free to take appropriate decision in the matter of disposal of municipal properties, keeping on view the relevant provisions of law.”

2.                The ld. counsel for the OPs has also pointed towards the head note of the present complaint, whereby the complainant is seeking direction from this Forum not to claim/recover the amount of rent from the complainant and further not to sell alienate the said shop No.44 situated at railway road, Mandi Gobindgarh to any other person except to the complainant only.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the said policy, which was quashed, had not been implemented by the OP, as the Hon’ble High Court had directed the OP to take a fresh decision regarding the allotment of MC, shops. The ld. counsel has alleged that no such decision has been taken by the Municipal Council with regard to disposal of the property, thus the complainant has the right to purchase the same.

4.                After going through the complaint and the written version alongwith the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in a case; Hari Mittak Vs. The State of Punjab,C.W.P No.4511 of 2001, decided on 31.03/2002, it appears to us that the complaint raised complicated questions of facts, which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. The question of relegating the matter and the parties arises only where voluminous evidence is required to be recorded as it would be needed in the present case in the light of judgment dated 13.03.2002, Hari Mittak Vs. The State of Punjab,C.W.P No.4511 of 2001. Moreover, the matter relates to rent or illegal eviction, which can only be adjudicated upon by the ld. Civil Court/Rent Controller .

5.                The claim had been denied by the opposite parties. On the face of the complaint no argument is needed to show that a great deal of evidence both oral and documentary would be required for the complainant to prove its case and the claim would even otherwise show that complicated questions of facts and law would arise, which is not possible for this Forum to decide in its summary jurisdiction. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors., held that such types of cases cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. In Civil Court parties will have full opportunity to lead evidence. Consumer Forum is not meant to try the cases like the present one.

6.                The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of R.D. Papers Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. I (2004) CPJ 101 (NC), observed as under:

We are of the view that the complaint raised complicated questions of facts and law which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. Then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially keeping in view the facts of the case.

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the judgment in the case of Deccan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. III (2002) CPJ 68 (NC), the following observations were made by the Hon’ble National Commission:

In such a situation a great deal of evidence both oral and documentary will have to be led by the complainant to prove his case, Question of interpretation of clauses of the policy will also arise which had already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court. It is not possible for the National Commission in its summary jurisdiction to decide such case. We may in this case refer to a decision of three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. I(2002) CPJ 16 (SC) : 2002 (1) SCALE, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed where complicated questions of law and facts are involved Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. It was also observed that a Civil Court would be right place to decide the issue involved in that case and it went further to add that the complainant did not file the complaint before the Civil Court to start with because, before the Consumer Forum, any figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay Court-fees and that this, in that sense, was an abuse of the process of the Consumer Forum. It will, therefore, be appropriate for a complaint like this to be tried in a Civil Court after payment of appropriate Court-fees.

7.                After going through the record and submissions of the ld. counsel for the parties, we feel the present complaint cannot be decided in a summary manner, as in order to prove the case, it will require voluminous evidence which includes oral and cross examination etc, in order to come to a conclusion. We may in this case refer to a decision of three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed where complicated questions of law and facts are involved Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. We feel in the present case also there are complicated questions of facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Form. Accordingly, we are unable to decide the case in hand on merits hence; we return the present complaint. The complainant is granted the liberty to approach the appropriate Court of law and may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. The present complaint is disposed of with the aforementioned observation. Parties to bear the cost.

8.                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 24.04.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. Copy of complaint be retained and consigned to the record room.

    Pronounced

    Dated:30.04.2015                                                      (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                                       President

 

    (Veena Chahal)                         Member