PREM SINGHA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are unable to uphold the view expressed by the State Commission that the points which are required to be investigated before it in the complaint petition, out of which this appeal has arisen, were so complicated as to necessitate the parties being referred to seek an adjudication before the ordinary Civil Court. The State Commission seems to have proceeded on a gross misunderstanding of the scope of the observations made by this Commission in the case of Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank (O.P. No. 32 of 1989 dated 22.12.1989). The facts of that case were of a very special nature as clearly indicated in the judgment therein. There were allegations of fraud, misappropriation, fabrication of records and tampering with accounts and it was found necessary to conduct a close scrutiny of different accounts in two banks for long periods ranging from 10 to 12 years. It was in those circumstances that this Commission held that it was not a fit case for being dealt with by a Consumer Forum within its time bound programme for disposal of cases. In subsequent decisions of this Commission such as those rendered in S.K. Abdul Sukur v. State of Orissa in First Appeal No. 96 of 1990 dated 5.4.1991. L.I.C. of India v. Bhavanam Sreenivas Reddy (First Appeal No. 79 of 1990 dated 5.6.1991) and S. Bhagat Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Revision Petition No. 7 of 1991 decided on 7th October, 1991) we have had occasion to clarify the scope of the observations made in Special Machines Ltd. case. WE have pointed out that the observations made by this Commission in the Special Machines and in the subsequent case of janta Machine Tools Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (O.P. No. 12 of 1990 dated 21.6.1990) have to be understood against the background of the special facts which were present in those the cases and that it was nowhere laid down in these cases that whenever the examination and cross-examination of witnesses is involved the proper forum for adjudication of the disputes is only the Civil Court. In S.K. Abdul Sukur v. State of Orissa after pointing out that the redressal forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have been specifically vested with power to examine witnesses on oath etc, this Commission has observed thus: