BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.53 of 2015

Date of Instt. 19.02.2015

Date of Decision :22.07.2015

Bhupinder Singh son of Gurdeep Singh R/o Village Kotha, PO Kang Khurd, Tehsil Shahkot District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Market Committee, Lohian Khas, through its Chairman/Authorized officer.

2. M/s Hari Singh & Sons, Commission Agents, Dana Mandi Kang Khurd, Tehsil Shahkot District Jalandhar through its Prop./Authorized Officer Sh.Kulwant Singh.

3. M/s Gursimran Trading Co. Commission Agents, Dana Mandi Kang Khurd, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar through its Prop./ Authorized Officer Sh.Dalwinder Singh.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.RK Bhardwaj Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.JKS Chhabra Adv., counsel for opposite party no.1.

Opposite parties No.2 and 3 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is permanent resident of address above mentioned and is an agriculturist by profession. The complainant is having his agricultural lands at Village Kang Khurd and at Village Kotha Tehsil Shahkot District Jalandhar and use to sow and harvest crops as per season where as the opposite parties No.2 and 3 are commission agents at Grain Market, Kang Khurd Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar and are offering services for sale-purchase of agricultural produce on commission basis. Further the opposite party No.1 is controlling agency established by Govt. of Punjab under law to look and manage the sale and purchase of agricultural produce and issue license etc to commission agents and also to maintain the record regarding the sale purchase of agricultural crops by different commission agents within their jurisdiction. The complainant being agriculturist availed the services being offered by the opposite parties and sold his agricultural produce i.e Paddy, to the opposite party No.2 on 16.10.2011 and as a token of purchase of Paddy crop, the opposite party No.2 issued a J-Form as per the instruction of Govt. of Punjab to the complainant. Further, the complainant also sold his wheat crop to the opposite party No.2 on 25.4.2012 serial No.85 book No.1 and as a token of purchase of Paddy crop, the opposite party No.2 issued a J-Form bearing serial No.26, book No.1 as per the instructions of Govt. of Punjab to the complainant. Similarly, the complainant being agriculturist sold his agricultural produce i.e Paddy, to the opposite party No.3 on 19.10.2012 and as a token of purchase of Paddy crop, the opposite party No.3 issued a J-Form bearing serial No.68 as per the instruction of Govt. of Punjab to the complainant. Further, the complainant also sold his wheat crop to the opposite party No.2 on 5.5.2014. The opposite party No.1 being the controlling and managing authority of opposite parties No.2 & 3 also affixed its seal on all the above said J-Forms. At the same time, the officers of the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the above said J-Forms are negotiable instruments and are legal and valid for all intents and purposes. Few weeks back, the complainant applied for issuance of tourist visa to High Commission of UK in New Delhi. At the time of submission of documents the complainant also presented the above mentioned J-Forms issued by the opposite parties considering the same to be legal and valid documents, however to the utter surprise, the visa of the complainant was refused by the British High Commission and further blacklisted the complainant for 10 years. On inquiry and from perusal of refusal letter issued by High Commission, it had been revealed that the document i.e above said J-Forms are fake documents. The complainant further came to know that the British High Commission through its proper channel got inquired and verified about the genuineness of above mentioned J-Forms from office of the opposite party No.1 who also made some false report regarding the above said J-Forms. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him Rs.3 Lacs as damages and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Upon, notice opposite party No.1 appeared and filed its written reply raising preliminary objections regarding locus-standi, no deficiency of service on its part, want of cause of action, non-joinder of necessary party, concealment of material facts, jurisdiction and complainant being not consumer etc. On merits it pleaded that it is the opposite parties No.2 and 3 who can file the better written reply whether the opposite parties No.2 and 3 ever offered their services to the complainant or not. However the answering opposite party never offered him any services. When the J-Forms are issued the stamp is affixed. However it is wrong that the opposite party No.1 ever assured that the said J-Forms are Negotiable Instruments. It denied other material averments of the complainant for want of knowledge and further pleaded that there is no collusion between opposite parties.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not appeared and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.1.

7. In substance allegations of the complainant are that J-Forms Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 issued by the opposite parties are fake i.e forged one. According to him, he applied for tourist visa to U.K. Embassy but it refused visa vide decision Ex.C5, inter-alia, mentioning that local checks (as detailed in a document verification report held by their office) have confirmed that these crop receipts are false. At the time of sale of produce, J-Forms bearing the stamp of market committee is issued by the commission agent wherein name of the purchaser is also mentioned. The payment is made by the purchaser and market fee is also deposited by the purchaser. It is not case of the complainant that he did not receive the price of the agricultural produce sold by him through the commission agent. He is only alleging that the J-Forms are forged one. There is no evidence on record to effectively decide this issue. The complainant is only relying upon the report of U.K. Embassy Ex.C5 wherein it is mentioned that local checks (as detailed in a document verification report held by their office) have confirmed that these crop receipts are false. The report of U.K. Embassy in this regard is just hearsay evidence and not admissible in evidence to prove the alleged forgery. No document verification report held by U.K. Embassy is on record. The details of local checks made by the embassy to verify the genuineness of the J-Forms is not known. Moreover, to decide the question of forgery appropriate forum is civil court. To decide the forgery detailed evidence and inquiry is required which is not practicable in the present summary proceedings. In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(3) Apex Court Judgment 365 (SC), it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

"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 document (i.e proposal forms) produced by the appellant.

The Commission having accepted that there was wrong declaration of the nature of occupation of the person insured, should not have granted the relief in the manner done.

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 a appropriate court of law and not by the Commission".

8. So in our opinion, the plea of forgery of J-Forms issued by the opposite parties can not be effectively decided in the present summary proceedings particularly on the basis of evidence on record. So complainant may approach the civil court for redressal of his grievance.

9. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach civil court or any other appropriate forum. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

22.07.2015 Member Member President