RAJESHWAR PRASAD Vs. BCL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS is complainant's petition. Though he succeeded before the District Forum, on appeal filed by the respondent, opposite party it was allowed and the order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint dismissed.

(2.) PETITIONER-COMPLAINANT had purchased one Eicher Tractor with trailer on hire purchase basis from the respondent. Alleging deficiency in service he filed a complaint in the District Forum at Hazaribagh, now in the State of Jharkhand. He prayed that he may be required to pay the amount due to the respondent on reasonable instalments and also sought compensation of the loss caused to him. His case was that he paid Rs. 78,349 to the respondent as advance which was illegally shown to have spent by the respondent and the amount of loan was thus maximised resulting in the increase of instalments. He complained that all this happened because his signatures were obtained by the respondents on blank paper and he was made to sign 10 blank cheques. Opposite party respondent disputed the claim of the petitioner and stated that the petitioner defaulted in making the instalment and further that the hire purchase agreement contained arbitration clause. It was then alleged that the dispute was referred to the arbitration of Mr. Bijayendra, Advocate of the Calcutta High Court who had since given his award. It is also contended that since the agreement was entered into at Calcutta where the respondent resides and carries its business District Forum at Hazari Bagh would have no jurisdiction. Since the award as mentioned by the respondent was not brought on record we did not give any credence to such a plea.

(3.) HOWEVER, State Commission was of the view that the case involved complicated and complex question of law and facts inasmuch as allegtions were made by the complainant having signed on blank papers and blank cheques etc. and that it was appropriate that parties be relegated to Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus keeping all these circumstances in view, State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner, yet leaving him to seek his remedy before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. We do not find any error in the reasoning of State Commission to take contrary view and we would, therefore, dismiss this revision petition. R. P. dismissed.