Heard on the point of admission. Perusal of the filed shows that the Complainant has already approached the Permanent Lok Adalat Moga. The Complainant has himself produced on record the copy of order of Permanent Lok Adalat, Moga Ex.C3 in which it is clearly stated to the following effect:
“After considering all the submissions of the both the parties and going through the documents on the file, we are of the considered opinion that the present dispute is regarding rendition of account and for that purposes the proper course would be to approach the civil court, where the elaborate evidence of both the parties shall be recorded to determine if accounts maintained by the respondent bank needs any correction or not. Keeping in view the nature of dispute as emerging on the documents on the file, we are of the considered opinion that Permanent Lok Adalat is not in a position to pass any effective order qua the dispute. Hence the present petition is ordered to be returned with liberty the petitioner to approach the civil court and apply for rendition of account to get the things clear.”
But however, despite the clear order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Moga, the Complainant has filed the instant complaint before this Forum.
2. A bare perusal of the complaint alongwith its allied documents produced alongwith the complaint, it shows that in the present complaint, complicated questions of facts are involved which require evidence at length and as such, the complaint can not be decided in a summary manner, therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction in the light of the judgement delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in which it has been clearly held that where there are complicated questions of facts and law which require lengthy trial and evidence to be led by both the parties and also to provide opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, then such type of the complaints should not be entertained by the Forum, rather should be relegated to the Civil Courts. Furthermore, the instant dispute is with regard to calculation etc. In this regard, we draw support in this connection from Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Vs. Himanshu S.Thumar 2005(1) CPJ page 92, wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad has held that account dispute is not a’consumer dispute’ and the complaint should not have been entertained by the District Consumer Forum.
3. But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complaint contained contentious questions of law and facts, which require voluminous evidence for deciding the same . The witnesses also require to be cross examined at length. The complaint proceedings before this Forum are summary in nature and this Forum cannot delve deep into the matter or allow the cross examination of numerous witnesses or production of voluminous documents. Since the matter relates to intricate questions of law and facts. A probe into the matter is required to be made. As such, this Forum cannot exercise its jurisdiction to decide the intricate questions of law and facts in a summary manner. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
4. The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
5. As such, instant complaint is disposed of with the liberty to the Complainant to relegate his dispute to the Civil Court for deciding the matter in accordance with law. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated: 08.06.2018.
