JAMES Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Denying the various allegations made in the complaint and also resisting the claim for granting reliefs prayed for in the complaint the opposite parties inter alia contended that "the dispute involved in the petition cannot be adjudicated before this Hon'ble Commission as it involves complicated question of facts and law. It also requires taking of elaborate evidence from many witnesses. In a summary procedure a case of sort mentioned above cannot be adjudicated by a Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act and the parties will have to be relegated to the Civil Court".

(2.) The highest Court of the country had occasion to consider the question when a Forum can ask a complainant to approach the Civil Court in CCI Chambers Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. V/s. Development Credit Bank, III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC)=v (2003) SLT 185= AIR 2003 SC 5882 and held that it is only when the dispute arising for adjudication is such as would require recording of lengthy evidence not permissible within the scope of a summary inquiry that a Forum under the Act may ask the complainant to approach the Civil Court. Supreme Court laying down the law made the following observations : (6) It cannot be denied that Fora at the National level, the State level and at the District level have been constituted under the Act with the avowed object of providing summary and speedy remedy in conformity with the principles of natural justice, taking care of such grievances as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Fora established under the Act. There Fora have been established and conferred with jurisdiction in addition to the conventional Courts. The principal object sought to be achieved by establishing such Fora is to relieve the conventional Courts of their burden which is ever increasing with the mounting arrears and where at the disposal is delayed because of the complicated and detailed procedure which at times is accompanied by technicalities. Merely because recording of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved. (7) In the Indian Medical Association case this Court noticed the powers conferred on the several Fora under the Act, the procedure applicable (including the exercise of some powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure having been made available to the Fora under the Act) and held that the nature of averments made in the complaint is not by itself enough to arrive at a conclusion that the complaint raises such complicated questions as cannot be determined by the NCDRC. It is only when the dispute arising for adjudication is such as would require recording of lengthy evidence not permissible within the scope of a summary inquiry that a Forum under the Act may ask the complainant to approach the Civil Court. The Fora made available under the Act are in addition to. In Synco Industries case this Court upheld the order of NCDRC holding the complaint before it not a fit case to be tried under the Act and allowing liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court because this Court agreed with the opinion formed by the Commission that "very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses". The Court concluded that in any event it was not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion". (8) In Amar Jwala Paper Mills (India) and Another case this Court set aside the order of NCDRC relegating a complainant to a Civil Court in spite of the complexity of the matter because the hearing had almost concluded before the Commission. (9) In Dr. J. J. Merchant and Others case this Court dealing with the contention that complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings held -"this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that the Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For the trial to be just and reasonable, a loan drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that the Legislature has provided an alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would also be a totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of fact are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards. " and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and the jurisdiction of the conventional Courts over such matters as are now cognizable under the Act has not been taken away. A three-Judge Bench of this Court recently in Dr. J. J. Merchant and Others case , specifically dealt with the issue as to the guidelines which would determine the matter being appropriately dealt with by a Forum under the Act or being left to be heard and decided by a Civil Court. This Court noticed that the Fora under the Act are specifically empowered to follow such procedure which may not require more than or delay the proceedings. A Forum under the Act is entitled, and would be justified, in evolving a procedure of its own and also by effectively controlling the proceedings so as to do away with the need of a detailed and complicated trial and arrive at a just decision of the case by resorting to the principles of natural justice and following the procedure consistent with the principles thereof, also making use of such of the powers of Civil Court as are conferred on it. The decisive test is not the complicated nature of the questions of fact and law arising for decision. The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a Forum under the Act is to be determined is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary inquiry i. e. , by doing away with the need of a detailed and complicated method of recording evidence. It has to be remembered that the Fora under the Act at every level are headed by experienced persons. The National Commission is headed by a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court. The State Commission is headed by a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court. Each District Forum is headed by person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge. We do not think that mere complication either of facts or of law can be a ground for the denial of hearing by a Forum under the Act.

(3.) So the crucial question that is to be considered by us at this stage is whether applying the principles laid down in the above cited decision the complainant is to be asked to approach the competent Civil Court.