None appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1/Complainant even when the matter is called for the third time in the day at 02:55 PM. 2. As noted in the last Order dated 14.08.2024, it was the own case of the Complainant that he had been cheated by the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2, who are presently the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 respectively, and in Para 5 of his Original Complaint filed in the Ld. District Forum at Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab, he had gone to the extent of mentioning that the SSP, Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab had also been approached for initiating Criminal Proceedings against both the Opposite Parties under Section 420 of the IPC. It was in this backdrop, that we had observed that the Ld. Fora below ought not to have come to any findings on such disputed questions of facts in such summary proceedings as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, but should have relegated the parties to the normal Courts of law in which evidence in the prescribed manner would have been led and taken. Nevertheless, considering that the matter had reached right up to this Commission, we decided to reach to the bottom of the controversy and had directed the Complainants/Respondent No.1 to place the details of the manner in which he had submitted his Complaint to the SSP, Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab, and how his Complaint had actually been delivered in the concerned office. But the Complainant has now absented himself from the proceedings without any intimation, which conduct only augments the premise that the Complaint per se was not entertainable in the first place before the Consumer Forum as specific allegations of fraud/cheating/criminal offences had been made therein, on account of which it fell within the parameters of the observations of this Commission in the case of “P. N. Khanna Vs. Bank Of India, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1456”, in which it had been observed inter alia:- “6. Learned State Commission rightly observed as under: In Bright Transport Company v. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC), it was held by the National Commission that the complaints which are based on the allegations of fraud, forgery, etc. and trial of which would require the leading of voluminous evidence and consideration thereof cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court; Reliance Industries Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., I (1998) CPJ 13, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. v. United Commericial Bank III (1992) CPJ 50, a case decided by a three member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi it was held that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the same cannot be decided, by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature.” 3. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Orders passed by both the Ld. Fora were unsustainable, as the same were passed in relation to a Complaint which was not maintainable in the first place on account of the fact that it was based on allegations of criminal offences, cheating and fraud, etc. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant Revision Petition is allowed after setting aside the Orders passed by the Ld. Fora below. The Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 consequently stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. 5. The Revision Petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the decretal amount deposited by it in compliance of the earlier Order dated 09.08.2019. |
