DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Lakhbir Singh s/o Sh.Jabit S.Chaudhary, r/o H.No.158, Village Kansal, District Mohali, Punjab.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       Sh.G.S.Cheema, Ex-Chief Flying Instructor, Haryana Institute of Civil Aviation, Pinjore through Chief Executive Director, Haryana Institute of Civil Aviation, Department of Civil Aviation, Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2.       Sh.Kamal Kishore, Executive Director cum Chief Flying Instructor, Haryana Institute of Civil Aviation, Department of Civil Aviation Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3.       Sh.Dev Dutt Sharma, Ex-Executive Officer, Haryana Institute of Civil Aviation, Department of Civil Aviation, Haryana through Advisor, Civil Aviation, Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

4.       Sh.Ram Mehar Aggarwal, Ex-Administrative & Publicity Office, o/o Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, Department of Civil Aviation, Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

5.       Sh.Naresh Kumar, Dy.Superintendent, o/o Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, Department of Civil Aviation, Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

6.       Sh.K.Bagchi, Ex-Director, Dte. of Training & Licencing, o/p Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India through Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, opposite Safdarjang Airport, New Delhi.

7.       Sh.Chanan Ram, Undersecretary, o/o Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India through Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, opposite Safdarjang Airport, New Delhi.

8.       The official/officers concerned holding the post of the Secretary, Department of Civil Aviation, Haryana during the  pendency of complaint No.411 of2002 before this Hon’ble Court through Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

9.       Sh.Rajiv Arora, Ex-Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, through Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

10.     Sh.S.S.Dhillon, Ex-Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, through Advisor, Civil Aviation Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

11.     The official/officers concerned holding the post of the Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India through Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, opposite Safdarjang Airport, New Delhi.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

ARGUED BY :Sh.Lakhbir Singh, Advocate, complainant/applicant                     in person.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Lakhbir Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 340 of CrPC, against 11+ accused persons alleging that they committed offences under Section 191, 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 166, 167, 182, 120-B of IPC, therefore, the complaint be sent against them to the concerned Magistrate for necessary action.

2.                We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant.

3.                It is pertinent to note that Sh.Lakhbir Singh, complainant earlier filed a complaint No.411 of 2002, which was decided on 3.4.2003 by the then learned President and Members of this Forum. In that complaint, the complainant sought directions from this Forum to OPs (which were 7 in number) for producing copy of the guidelines issued by Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, New Delhi on the basis of which, his case for issue of CPL/FRTO licence  was denied and also sought some other allied reliefs. This Forum found that during the pendency of the proceedings, complainant was issued FRTO licence during January, 2003, so with the issue of licence, the prayer of the complainant with regard to supply of copy of requirements for issue of FRTO licence became infructuous. In regard to the  prayer of the complainant for production of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, on the basis of which, his case for issue of CPL/FRTO was rejected by not providing the extension of validity period of the lapsed papers by DGCA, Govt. of India, New Delhi, it was found that application of the complainant was received by DGCA on 21.9.1999 and as on date of the application, the validity of the papers were lapsed by 10 months, so he was not issued CPL. OPs had placed on record a copy of the letter – Annexure A signed by the complainant, which is reproduced as below :-

“I visited DGCA office in Delhi today and met Shri J.K.Sardana, Director Training & Licensing, who heard me in connection with issue of commercial pilot licence (aeroplane) to me. This refers to his letter to me dated 5.4.2000 in which I was told that I could see him personally. He explained the guidelines being following in respect of giving extension of validity of pass in written papers and also flight experience. I have understood the guidelines which were communicated to me vide the aforesaid letter. The guidelines as I understood are 25% of the time limit laid down.”

This Forum also observed that even otherwise OP No.6 had explained these guidelines in its reply. It was also observed by this Forum that complainant had also preferred writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court seeking compensation on the same cause of action, so being the matter sub-judice, the relief sought by the complainant in the prayer clause No. 4 to 8 of the complaint could not be granted by this Forum. However, as regards corruption charges leveled against OP No.7, the same were beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum and complainant could seek appropriate remedy. So, no further relief was required to be granted to the complainant by this Forum and the complaint was ordered to be filed vide order dated 3.4.2003.

4.                Now, the complainant has filed this complaint under Section 340 of CrPC before this Forum on 27.2.2013 i.e. after 10 years against 11 + persons, wherein, it has been contended that the accused persons forged letter dated 11.4.2000 enclosed as Annexure A by DGCA with the written statement before this Forum and they deliberately misled this Forum, so that he could be deprived of his legitimate right of getting CPL.

5.                A perusal of the copy of the order dated 3.4.2003 passed by this Forum, coupled with the copy of letter dated 11.4.2000 – Annexure A on the file show that Annexure A is not the original letter but a photocopy of the same. In other words, the OPs did not produce any original letter, which was allegedly forged by them before this Forum. Even if the accused persons forged that letter, then the complainant must have come to know about the forgery during the pendency of the complaint No.411 of 2002. At any rate, the complainant had every opportunity to file an appeal/revision against the order dated 3.4.2003 passed by this Forum. If this Forum at this stage examines this document to decide whether the accused persons forged the letter dated 11.4.2000 – Annexure A then such an action on the part of this Forum would amount to review of its own order, which is not permissible under any provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6.                It is well settled that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC should not be undertaken at the instance of private persons unless the prosecution is clearly in the interest of the state and is reasonably certain to result in a conviction. The intention of the legislature is that there must be sufficient material before the court to show that an offence is likely to have been committed.

7.                It is also important to note that the complainant has himself mentioned in para No.5 of the complaint that in respect of the candidates, who used fake domicile certificates to get the flying training at Pinjore aerodrome a high level enquiry has been entrusted to SSP, Chandigarh by CJM, Chandigarh vide order dated 24.7.2012. It is also mentioned by the complainant in para No.31 of his complaint that a criminal case on the subject matter of issuance of CPL by fraud to Sh.Dinesh Bansal is pending against the accused persons in the court of Sh.T.P.S.Randhawa, JMIC, UT, Chandigarh. Considering all these circumstances, when only a photocopy of the alleged forged letter was produced in this Forum in the year 2003, we feel that it is not expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offences alleged by the complainant by this Forum before whom the proceedings are summary in nature.

8.                For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is ordered to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that the complainant is not debarred from taking action against the accused persons before the police or any court of competent jurisdiction.

9.                The certified copy of this order be sent to the applicant/complainant free of charge. The file be consigned.