DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.01/2008. Date of filing of the Case: 01.01.2008 Complainant | Opposite Party | Sri Gourab Chandra Das Aged about 50 years, S/O. Late Bhabesh Chandra Das, Resident of – Indrapuri Apartment, of Mokdumpur Bandh Road, P.S. English Bazar, Dist. Malda, Pin – 732103. | | Sri Partha Bhattacharya Aged about 51 years, S/O. Late Paritosh Bhattacharya, Mokdumpur Thakur Bari Lane, P.O. Mokdumpur, P.S. English Bazar, Dist. Malda Pin, 732103. |
Present | 1. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member | 2. | Dr. Soumen Sikder, Member |
For the Petitioner : Asit Baran Chowdhury, Advocate. For the O.P. : Balaram Pandey, Shankhanil Majumdar, Advocates. Order No. 28 Dt. 15.12.2008 The fact of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner is a deed writer and presently working at Malda Sadar Registration office, Malda. The petitioner and the O.P. are well acquainted with each other as the O.P. took loan amounting Rs.3,57,000/- time to time since 3.3.2000 from the petitioner and at last being unable to pay a huge amount the O.P. made a proposal to the petitioner to sell the flat measuring about 1550 Sq.ft (including garage) @Rs.600/- per sq.ft with a condition of adjustment of said loan amount with the principal amount. The petitioner accepted the verbally made proposal and took possession of the flat by paying Rs.9,67,000/- on different dates by bearer cheques. After taking possession the petitioner invested Rs.80,000/- for making the premises habitable on condition of adjustment of with the consideration amount of the flat. But the O.P. illegally with holds the incomplete works of the flat and is not executing sale deed infavour of the petitioner for the petitioner for such premises. Hence this case praying reliefs as per plaint. O.P. Partha Bhattacharya has filed written version denying therein material allegations contending interalia that the petitioner has filed a false case before the Forum for the purpose of cheating the O.P. O.P. further submits that as a deed written the petitioner is expert in manufacturing various kinds of documents by erasing overwriting and also manipulating it. The petitioner also has manufactured a document on a ten rupee stamp showing payment of Rs.3 lakhs on 2.1.2001. The O.P. further submits that the dispute involved in the petition cannot be adjudicated before this Forum and the petitioner will have to be relegated to the competent Civil Court and hence this petition would stand dismissed with cost. From the pleadings of both parties the following points are emerged for effective disposal of the case:- 1. Whether the present proceeding is entertainable by the Dist. Consumer Forum? 2. Whether the petitioner is a consumer or nor? 3. Whether there was any deficiency on the part of the O.P. 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for? :DECISION WITH REASONS: Point No.1 At the very outset the point raised by the ld. Lawyer on behalf of the O.P. deserves consideration when he has taken up the plea that the present case relates to Civil matter and the present Forum is not in a position to disposal of the same as because some complex and complicated question of laws and facts arising from the complaint and it should more appropriately be relegated to the Civil Court, which has been seriously objected by the ld advocate on behalf of the complainant. In this connection this Forum finds opportunity to take assistance of the salutary observations appearing in the case of NEPA Ltd. :Vs: Madhya Pradesh Electricity Boards, 2003 CTJ 209(CP) = (2003) CPJ 138 (NC), wherein, the following observations were made by the Hon’ble National Commission:- “The claim had been denied by the O.P. On the face of the complaint no argument is needed to show that a great deal of evidence both oral and documentary would be required for the complaint to prove its case and the claim would even otherwise show that complicated questions of facts and law would arise which is not possible for the National Commission to decide in its summary jurisdiction.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries Vs. State Bank of Bikaneer and Jaipur & Ors 2002 CFJ 169 (SC) (CP) = 1 (2002) CPJ 16(Sc) observed that where complicated questions of law and facts are involved, Forum under the C.P. Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. It was also observed that a Civil Court would be right place to decide the issue involve in that case.” In the case of R.D Papers Ltd VS. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors 2003 CTJ 467 (CP) = 1 (2004) CPJ 101 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission observed as under :- “After going through the compliant and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raised complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. ………….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 O.P.” It appears that in the observation referred supra their Lordship have expressed their valuable opinion that where complex and complicated questions of law and facts are involved such a case cannot be disposed of by the Forum. But this Forum has not decided the question of complicated nature at initial stage. Both the parties have appeared before the Forum. O.P. has filed written version. Both the parties have filed some documentary evidence and further evidence is yet to be taken on record. Petitioner is examined as P.W. – 1 and has filed some documents which are marked Ext.1 to 29 such as receipt of payment on stamp paper dated 3.3.2000 (Ext.1), Bank slip dt.3.3.2000 (Ext.2), counter part of cheques (Ext.3 to 5)………..counter part of cheque (Ext.28) and advocate’s letter sent to O.P. dt.20.6.2007 (Ext.29). During examination O.P. also filed some documents which are marked Ext.A to K. This Forum made careful scrutiny of the record in question in its entirety, of which special reference may be made to is Ext. 1 which relates to a ten rupee stamp paper purchased in the name of the O.P. stating therein that the O.P. took loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioner long before the date of purchase of the flat which was written by the petitioner at his own hand writing and without the signature of any witness except of the O.P. The same has been vehemently denied by the O.P. stating that the petitioner fraudulently obtained the signature on the said stamp paper and manufactured the said document before filing it. So at the very initial stage this Forum is not passing the order as was held in the case of CCI chambers Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. :Vs: Development Credit Bank Ltd, 2003 CTJ 849 (SC) (CP). This question be decided after pleadings were filed whether the matter is complicated enough. In this regard, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are as under:- “The commission ought to have issued notice to the respondent and taken its pleadings on record. Only when the pleadings for both parties were available should the commission have formed on opinion as to the nature and scope of enquiry i.e. whether the questions arising; for decision in the light of the pleadings of the parties required a detailed and complicated investigation into the facts which was incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner. Then the commission could have justifiably formed an opinion on the need of driving away the complainant to the civil court. Mere complicated nature of the facts and law arising for decision would not be decisive.” Thus, having gone through the materials on record and the salutary observations refer to supra and the testimonies of the witness of both the parties this Forum is also of the opinion that whenever not only the complicated questions of law but disputed question of facts, relating to monetary transactions between the parties and requirement of recording voluminous evidence and deeds relating to forgery and conspiracy and other points mentioned earlier are involved, it would be desirable that the matter should not be dealt with by this Forum and could be relegated to appropriate Forum. In view of above this Forum is not required to discuss in detail the other points. Proper fees have been paid. Hence, ordered that Malda D.F. Case No.1/2008 is disposed of accordingly without any cost. Let the copy of the compliant be returned to the complainant and it is open to the complainant to approach the appropriate Forum as he deems fit & proper. Bench clerk do keep xerox copies of the record in its entirety in the office. Sd/- Sd/- Dr. Soumen Sikder Smt. Sumana Das Member Member D.C.D.R.F., Malda. D.C.D.R.F., Malda. | 
