Punjab

Moga

CC/16/42

Jagroop Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurmail Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Beant Singh Samra

09 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                                                                                                                                                        CC No. 42 of 2016

                                                                                                                                                                       Instituted on: 19.01.2016

                                                                                                                                                                      Decided on: 09.08.2016

 

Jagroop Singh aged 53 years s/o Dalip Singh R/o Wada Fala, VPO Dhaleke, Tehsil and District Moga.

                                                                          ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Gurmail Singh s/o Mohinder Singh, Director/Partner of Gill Brar Finance Co. Registered R/o Village Dhaleke, Tehsil and District Moga, now confined at Modern Jail, Faridkot.

 

2.       M/s Gill Brar Finance Co. Head Office Taptej Singh Market, Moga now at Amritsar Road, Near Bus Stand, Moga. 

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12/14  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Beant Singh Samra, Advocate Cl. for complainant. 

                   Sh. S.K. Sharma, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Gurmail Singh s/o Mohinder Singh, Director/Partner of Gill Brar Finance Co. Registered R/o Village Dhaleke, Tehsil and District Moga, now confined at Modern Jail, Faridkot and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to pay Rs. 2,78,480/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. thereon and Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, unnecessary harassment and deficient services to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit or proper be also granted.

2.                Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the opposite parties is running a Finance business and used to take money from the peoples and thereafter return the same with interest. The complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.04.2012 and they issued pass-book bearing account no.15 to the complainant. The opposite parties credited the interest on the said amount from time to time and as per last entry dated 18.04.2014 there was an amount of Rs.2,78,000/- was deposited by the complainant with opposite parties, after calculating the interest for the year 2014. The complainant requested the opposite parties to make the payment alongwith interest thereof, but the opposite parties did not make any payment to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to recover this amount with interest from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared in this Forum and filed their written reply by taking some preliminary objections. The main objection of the opposite parties is that the complainant is stopped to file the present complaint by his own act and conduct. The complainant has already received the entire amount with interest and the receipt/writing to this effect was reduced into writing and the same was duly signed by the complainant in the presence of witnesses. The alleged dispute has already come to an end and nothing is due towards the opposite parties. The receipt was signed by the complainant in the presence of witnesses; even then he had filed this false and frivolous complaint against the opposite parties. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The other partner of firm is also necessary parties to this case. Daljit Singh Brar was managing partner of the firm and he was maintaining the account books of the firm and dealing with all the customers and general public and he is equal responsible for any loss, dispute or difference etc.

4.                Proper opportunities to lead their evidence to prove their respective case was given to the parties. In his evidence, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 and copy of pass book Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence. 

5.                On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered in their evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Gurmail Singh s/o Mohinder Singh Ex. OPs-1, affidavit of Sh. Sangit Singh s/o Raghbir Singh Ex. OPs-2 and copy of receipt Ex. OPs-3, but opposite parties has not closed the evidence, rather at this stage, learned counsel for opposite parties filed an application for directing the complainant either admit or deny his signatures on the receipt dated 10.03.2015 and in case of denial by the complainant, permission for comparison of signatures of Jagroop Singh complainant appearing on the complaint, verification, his Vakalatnama, on case file and affidavit of evidence produced by him in the Forum with his signatures appearing on receipt dated 10.03.2015. Opposite parties submitted that they have produced the copy of receipt dated 10.03.2015 duly executed and signed by the complainant regarding receipt of amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, which was duly signed by him in the presence of witnesses named Sangit Singh and Varinder Singh, who also signed the same in the presence of complainant and opposite party no.1. The complainant has neither admitted nor denied the validity and genuineness of the said receipt and in case of denial, the opposite parties may be allowed to compare signatures of complainant appearing on the complaint, verification, his vakalatnama on case file and affidavit of evidence produced by him in this court.

6.                Upon notice of application, the complainant has filed reply to the application vide which he denied the execution of alleged receipt. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties have prepared the forged and fabricated receipt in connivance with witnesses. The complainant never made any compromise with the respondents. So, question of receiving any payment from respondents in the alleged compromise does not arise and moreover at the time of submitting written reply by them, they never produced the alleged receipt. The alleged receipt is forged and fabricated one. Now there are rival contentions of the parties regarding compromise and execution of alleged receipt of payment dated 10.03.2015 and the respondents alleged that there was a compromise effected between the parties and vide that compromise the complainant has received Rs.2,50,000/- in full and final settlement and he executed a receipt in his favour in the presence of witnesses, whereas the complainant denied the execution of alleged receipt. Now the opposite parties wanted to get compared the signatures appearing on the receipt with the standard signatures of complainant from some expert. In these circumstances, where there are rival contentions of both the parties, now for deciding this case required voluminous evidence and expert opinion and also evidence of alleged witnesses and their cross-examinations required to decide the genuineness of alleged receipt. Whereas, the procedure before this Forum is of summary in nature and the evidence of expert and cross-examination of alleged witnesses cannot be made in this Forum. Our Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi observed in the citation 2014(1)CLT, paged 481 titled as M/s Heights Trade (P) Ltd. Vs UCO Bank, whereas, our Hon'ble National Commission held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13-Summary Procedure. Complicated question. Jurisdiction-Intricate and complicated questions involved in the case. It would be difficult to decide the case on mere documents. The evidence of Experts and Record have to be looked into. These questions must be discussed by an appropriate forum or civil court. The Consumer Commission must refrain from arrogating those powers which it does not possess.

7.                From the above discussion and in light of the decision of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, we are of the view that there is intricate and complicated questions of law is involved in the present case and it is difficult to decide the present case only on documentary evidence and there is expert evidence is required for which this Forum has no jurisdiction. So, we are of the opinion that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and we hereby disposed of the present complaint. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance from civil court or any other appropriate Forum and in that case the time spent in contesting the present complaint before this Forum shall be excluded while calculating the period of limitation. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:09.08.2016.

 

 

                              (Bhupinder Kaur)         (Vinod Bala)         (Ajit Aggarwal)

                               Member                          Member               President