Haryana

StateCommission

A/1126/2015

G.S.SANDHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEERAJ MITTAL - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.BEDI

09 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1126 of 2015

Date of Institution:        30.12.2015

Date of Decision :         09.02.2016

 

 

1.     Shri G.S. Sandhu s/o Sh. Kehar Singh,

2.     Smt. Amarjeet Sandhu w/o Sh. G.S. Sandhu,

3.     Shri Akashdeep Sandhu s/o Sh. G.S. Sandhu,

 

All Residents of House No.213-L, Sector 4, MDC, Panchkula.

                                      Appellants/Complainants

Versus

 

1.      Neeraj Mittal s/o Sh. O.P. Mittal,

2.      Nisha Mittal w/o Sh. Neeraj Mittal,

 

Both Residents of House No.769, Sector-21, Panchkula.

 

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri P.S. Pedi, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.

 

G.S. Sandhu, his wife Amarjeet Sandhu and son-Akashdeep Sandhu-Complainants/appellants, hired the services of Neeraj Mittal and his wife-Nisha Mittal-Opposite Parties/respondents, for the purpose of raising construction over the residential plot.  A written agreement, Annexure R-1, was executed on 14^th May, 2011. The rough estimated cost of structure was Rs.56,70,000/- and total cost was Rs.1,03,00,000/-. The construction was to be completed within thirteen months. During the visit of the appellants to check the quality of work, it was found that sub-standard work was being carried out. The labour engaged was inexperienced. There were cracks in the structure besides the lobby’s ceiling was slanting etcetera. There were other defects also which were pointed out to the respondents. The appellants were stated to have spent Rs.1,18,000,00/-. Pointing out all the defects, the appellants filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) praying for payment of the amount spent on the cost of construction, on account of defects alongwith costs and compensation etc.

2.      The opposite parties/respondents, in their reply stated that the appellants were short of finances and therefore levelled false allegations against them.

3.      During the pendency of the complaint, the respondents filed suit for recovery of Rs.4,05,940/- against the appellants in the Civil Court stating it to be the amount due from the appellants.

4.      The complaint was fixed for arguments on merits when the District Forum vide order dated 26^th November, 2015, dismissed the complaint observing in para No.5 as under:-

“5.     A perusal of the pleadings made by the party would indicate that there are indeed disputed questions of fact which cannot be disposed of in a summary manner in the proceedings before the forum which require voluminous documentary and oral evidence including cross-examination of various witnesses and experts which cannot be done possibly by the Forum.”

5.      The Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora and other Tribunals were created to lessen the burden of Civil Courts, by way of alternate Fora and also to provide expeditious relief to the deserving without undergoing the costly, intricate and dilatorily procedures.  The Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora cater to the needs of a special and specific category of litigants.  The jurisdiction and scope of the Civil Courts and such Fora have been well defined.  Simultaneously, summary procedure has to be adopted for decision by these Fora so that the consumers are not caught in the cobweb of long drawn battles of law and procedure besides, such Fora are presided by person who are or have been or are eligible to be District Judges.  In other words men of caliber having good knowledge of law, facts and procedure are to deal with consumer disputes.  They are not suppose to abdicate by taking refuge under the pretext that the matter involves complicated questions of facts and law.  It is their duty to decide all such questions by bringing into play their legal acumen, experience and knowledge of law and facts.  

6.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. MERCHANT & ORS. VERSUS SHRINATH CHATURVEDI III(2002) C.P.J. 8 (S.C.) held as under:-

“It is next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For trial to be just and reasonable drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that Legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards….”

7.      In CCI Chambers Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd., 2003 AIR SCW 5887, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely because recording of evidence required on some facts and law which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for denial of trial of the complaint by the District Forum under this Act.  The decisive test is not the complicated nature of the questions of fact and law arising for decision. The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a Forum under the Act is to be determined, is whether the questions, though complicated, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry i.e. by doing away with the need of a detailed and complicated method of recording evidence. It has to be remembered that the Consumer Fora under the Act at every level are headed by experienced persons. (Underline ours)

8.      In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305, Supreme Court noticed the background, the object and reasons and the purpose for which the C.P. Act was enacted. By referring to the earlier judgments in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta - (1994) 1 SCC 243, and Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. N. K. Modi – (1996) 6 SCC 385, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

       “The preamble of the Act declares that it is an Act to provide for better protection of the interest of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and matters connected therewith. In Section 3 of the Act in clear and unambiguous terms it is stated that the provisions of the 1986 Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the scheme of the 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi-judicial forums are set up at the district, State and national level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi-judicial forums, observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalties for non-compliance with their orders.”

 

9.      In Kishore Lal Vs. Chairman, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (2007) 4 SCC 579, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora should not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting the Consumer Forum to take up the matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or any other forum as established under some enactment.  The relevant observations read as under:-

       “The trend of the decisions of this Court is that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum should not and would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting the Consumer Forum to take up the matter which falls within the jurisdiction of civil court or any other forum as established under some enactment. The Court had gone to the extent of saying that if two different fora have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum would not be barred and the power of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate upon the dispute could not be negated.”

 

10.    The catena of law on the point has been cited here with some details to bring it home that it will not be in the interest of law or justice for a Forum to abdicate its function and send the parties to a Civil Court merely because some questions involved can be answered only after taking evidence which will involve examination and cross-examination etc.   The approach exhibited by the District Forum in this case run counter to the very purpose of creating the District Fora. 

11.    The order under appeal is thus not sustainable.  It is set aside and the District Forum is directed to decide the case on merits.  The file is remitted to the District Forum.  

12.    The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Panchkula, on March 1^st, 2016.

13.    Copy of this order be sent to all the District Fora in the State of Haryana.

 

Announced 09.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL/UK