WHEN CONSUMER COURT CANNOT HEAR A CASE UNDER SUMMERY PROCEDURE

 

This issue has been discussed time and again in various cases decided by the apex court and every time in different context ,views have been expressed which in nut shell concludes that consumer foras should not shunt out the cases to civil court only for the reason some evidence or cross examination is required to be led for reaching to the findings neither at the outset it can be decided that the the complaint involves complicated question of law and hence should be dragged to civil court .

Once again  a case had come up recently before the Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of  Trai Foods Ltd. V/S National Insurance Co.111(2012)Cpj17(Sc)under a peculiar situation wherein facts are entirely different .In this matter ,due to earthquake there was a damage to the  machinery of the complainant which led detoriation of stock .There were also consequential losses .All these facts needed detailed investigation as to what loss contributed to what cause .Hence this case was considered beyond the jurisdiction of consumer commissions under summery procedure.The Hon’ble SC relied upon its earlier judgements and held

“In J.J..Merchant case ,this court has not denied the discretion of the commission to refer the complaint to the civil court for appropriate relief in case the complaint involves complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts which may delay the proceedings .’

It is further held “we have been through the records filed before us and are satisfied that the commission ‘s decision was correct. There is no doubt havingregard to the nature of claim,the large amount of damagesclaimed,and the extensive inquiry into the evidence which would  be necessary in order to resolve the dispute between the parties that this is not the matter to be decided summerarily at all.’

While making its own observations this court in the present case expressed its views as hereunder:

“in our view the commission should address itself to the quantity of claim,the nature of claim,the nature of evidence which would be required to be submittedboth in respect of claim and damages suffered and the nature of legal issues before before deciding that thematter ought to be decided by the civil court in regular course.”

This issue was first dealt in the matter of  Syno Industries V State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur. (2002)2 SCC and view taken in the case was  ‘where detailed evidence would have to be led to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages ,it is not appropriate for such cases to be heard and disposed off in the summery jurisdiction and  more appropriate  would be the civil court”

In the same year in 2002,this court made different observations in different circumstances when Three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court, in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant'v/s  Shrinath Chaturvedi  [(2002) 6 SCC 635 as mentioned herein above.It has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel that recording of evidence of experts including doctors relied upon by the complainant would consume much time and therefore also complainant should approach the Civil Court.But futher under the facts and circumstances of the case in hand it observed :

“The Act specifically empowers the Consumer Forums to follow the procedure which may not require more time or delay the proceedings. Only caution required is to follow the said procedure strictly. Under the Act, while trying a complaint, evidence could be taken on affidavits [under Section 13(4)(iii)]. It also empowers such Forums to issue any Commission for examination of any witness [under Section 13(4)(v)]. It is also to be stated that Rule 4 in Order XVIII of C.P.C. is substituted which inter alia provides that in every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence. It also provides that witnesses could be examined by the Court or the Commissioner appointed by it. As stated above, the Commission is also empowered to follow the said procedure. Hence, we do not think that there is any scope of delay in examination or cross-examination of the witnesses. The affidavits of the experts including the doctors can be taken as evidence. Thereafter, if cross-examination is sought for by the other side and the Commission finds it proper, it can easily evolve a procedure permitting the party who intends to cross-examine by putting certain questions in writing and those questions also could be replied by such experts including doctors on affidavits.”

 It was next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings. Cort further held-“In our view, 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 Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court.”

While discussing about the competency of the members of the forum to deal with a medical case ,a technical issue ,the court  further held

“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 a High Court. Each District Forum is headed by a 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’

Court in the case . CCI Chambers Coop. HSG Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. [(2003) 7 SCC 233], and after explaining the same, Lahoti, CJ, (as His Lordship then was),further explained the theory and expressed its views that

 ‘ .....The decisive test is not the complicated nature of 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 enquiry i.e by doing away with the need of a detailed and complicated method of recording evidence. ”

It observed that  nature of averments made in the complaint was not by itself enough to arrive at a conclusion that the complaint raised such complicated questions as could only be determined by the Commission. It is  pre-mature in view of the fact that before issuing any notice to the respondent and before taking pleadings of both the parties on record, the Commission could not have formed an opinion as to the nature and scope of the 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 were incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner. While coming to this conclusion, Lahoti CJ, (as his Lordship then was), in paragraph 6 of the aforesaid case in page no. 236 observed as follows:

"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. These fora have been established and conferred with the 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 whereat the disposal is delayed because of the technicalities.”

In yet another case of Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs. Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. [2008] INSC 2135 (11 December 2008)again this issue came up before the court as to whether the case could be heard by the consumer commission under summery procedure. The commission in this matter had held  -"Considering the disputed questions and the contentions which are sought to be raised by the complainant, in our opinion, this complaint is not required to be dealt with under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the complaint is not entertained

The arguments were extended by the party contesting the case before the supreme court   , relying upon Syno industries v state bank of Bikaner and jaipur.92002)2 SCC that even before issuing any notice, it was open to the Commission to look into the statements made in the complaint for the purpose of coming to a finding that pleadings made in the complaint would require thorough investigation of facts for which evidence had to be led which could not be decided in a summary manner and for which civil court should be approached

But the supreme court here did not agree to the argument and held-‘

“when pleadings of both the parties were made available before the Commission, only then the Commission should have formed an opinion as to the nature and scope of enquiry, i.e., whether the facts which arose for decision on the basis of the pleadings of the parties required a detailed and complicated investigation of facts which was incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner, then only the Commission should have justifiably formed an opinion on the need of relegating the complaint to a civil court’

In nut shell we may conclude finally that:

1.      Every case having complicated question of law need not be shunted to the civil court .

2.      It is also not necessary to hold before issuing the notice that the case will require detailed investigation,it is to be left to the the discretion of  the commission.

3.      The commission should address itself to the quantity of claim,the nature of claim,the nature of evidence which would be required to be submitted both in respect of claim and damages suffered and the nature of legal issues before  deciding that the matter ought to be decided by the civil court in regular course.”

 

-

 DR PREM LATA 

MEMBER, CONSUMER COURT