WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO LTD Vs. FATEH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of revisions it is the opposite parties who are petitioners before us. Though the petitioners succeeded before the District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondents-complainants, on appeal filed by the complainants the orders of the District Forum were set aside and the matters were remanded to the District Forum for fresh consideration of the complaints. District Forum had dismissed the complaints on the ground that complicated questions of law and facts arose which could not be decided in its summary jurisdiction. In the complaints there were as many as five opposite parties but the principal claim was against the petitioner - Western India Match Company Ltd. (for short WIMCO). It was the case of the complainants that on the basis of the advertisement given by WIMCO, complainants on 31.12.1986 entered into an agreement with it. The agreement contained a scheme which specified that complainants were to purchase Poplars Trees @ Rs. 52.50 per tree and this amount was payable in instalments lasting for a period of eight years. Trees were purchased by each complainant over 1,000 in number. It was stated that the payment could be by way of loan from Banks through NABARD. WIMCO was to provide inputs like fertilizer, insecticides etc. and at the end of eight years it was to purchase the trees @ Rs. 500/- per tree. Price would be more depending upon the quality of trees grown. Complaint was that WIMCO failed to purchase the trees. It was also submitted in some complaints that sapling of the trees supplied was not of good quality, majority of the trees withered within a period of 6 to 12 months.

(2.) ON the face of it the complainants will require a great deal of evidence, both oral and documentary. District Forum, therefore, in the exercise of its jurisdiction directed the complainants to go to Civil Court. State Commission did not agree. It remanded the complaints back to the District Forum. State Commission was of the view that the parties could not be relegated to the remedy of Civil Court simply on the ground that complicated questions of facts and law arose. It observed that :