CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD.versusDEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD.

                CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD.                              A
                                         v.
                     DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD.

                                AUGUST 29, 2003

                    [R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]                              B
           Consumer Protection Act, 1986--Consumer Forum-Complaint-
     Entertainability-Scope of-Consumer Forum considering the allegations,
     time to be taken to decide the matter, the documents required to be proved,
     returning the complaint-On appeal, held: Decision of Commission pre-          C
     mature since it ought to have issued notices, taken pleadings on record and
     then formed an opinion as to the scope ofenquiry-Thereafter it could have
     asked the complainant to approach Civil Court-Further, the mere
     complicated nature of facts and law arising for decision cannot be a
     groundfor denial-Matter remitted back to Commission for afresh hearing        D
     and decision-Section 23.

           Appellant maintained a savings bank account with the respondent-
     bank. He filed a complaint against the respondent-bank alleging
     deficiency of service. It was alleged that the respondent-bank hououred
     cheques worth Rs. 75, 17,352 bearing false signatures and altered figures,    E
     and then wrongly debited the amount. National Consumer Dispute
     Redressal Commission considered the allegations; the time required to
     decide the matter, the document required to be proved including 150
     cheques and observed that it was not possible for the Commission to
     take up the matter and thus returned the matter. Hence the present            F
     appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

          HELD: I. The fora at the National Leve~ the State level and the
     District level have been constituted under the Consumer Protection            G
     Act, 1986 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 jurisdiction in addition to the conventional courts. The       H
                                        139
..
    140                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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 complicated and detailed procedure which at times is accompanied
    by technicalities. Merely because recording of evidence is required, or
B   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. 1142-E-G)

       2. In the instant case, the decision arrived at by the National
  Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is premature. The
C Co11t111ission ought to have issued notice to the respondent-bank and
  taken its pleadings on record. Only when the pleadings for both parties
  were available sholtld the Commission have formed an opinion as to
  the nature and scope of enquiry, i.e., whether the questions arising for
  decision in the light of the pleadings of the parties required a detailed
D and complicated investigation into the facts which was incapable of
  being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner. Then the
  Commission could have justifiably formed an opinion on the need of
  driving away the complainant to the Civil Court. Mere complicated
  nature of the facts and law arising for decision would not be decisive.
E Thus the matter is remitted back to the Commission for afresh hearing
  and decision. 1144-G-H, 145-A-B)

         Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, 12002) 6 SCC 635;
    Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Ors., [1995) 6 SCC 651;
    Amar Jwala Paper Mills (India) and Anr. v. State Bank of India, 11998)
F   8 sec 387 and Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bi/caner & Jaipur and
    Ors., 12002) 2 SCC I, referred to.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7228 of
    2001.
G        From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.2001 of the National
    Consumer Disputes Redressal Commision, New Delhi in O.P. No. 160 of
    2001.

          Harish N. Salve, Ms. Rarnni Taneja, Ms. Minakshi Shakarande,
H Mukesh Tyagi and Rajiv Nanga for the Appellant.
    CCI CllAMBERS CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD. v. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD [LAHOTI, I.]   141

     P. Chidambaram and Harish J. Jhaveri for the Respondent.                                  A
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      R.C. LAHOTI, J. The appellant, who was maintaining a Savings
Bank Account with the respondent-Bank filed a complaint alleging deficiency
of service by the respondent, submitting that the Bank had wrongly debited                     B
an amount of Rs. 75, 70,352 in the account of the complainant by honouring
such cheques as bore forged signatures of the complainant and in some of
the cheques the figures had been altered. Photocopies of such cheques were
filed with the complaint. As many as 72 cheques were issued on such dates
when one of the two persons purportedly drawing the cheques ws already                         C
dead. The other one denied his signatvres and such disputed signatures did
not at all tally with the standard specimen signatures. Suspicion was raised
against an official of the respondent-Bank. The complaint was filed after
serving notice on the respondent-Bank, which was not complied with.
                                                                                               D
      The National Consumer Distputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
(hareinafter, NCDRC, for short), formed an opinion as under :

          " ...considering the allegations in the comaplaint and the time that
          will require to decide the matter, it cannot be perhaps possible for E
          this Commission to take up this matter. Numerous documents
          would be required to be proved including about 150 cheques.
          Service of the experts will have to be requisitioned for proof of
          the signatures and the writings wherein the figures in cheques
          have been altered. Under the Consumu Protection Act, 1986, this
          Commission is expected to decide the matter within a set frame F
          of time. In Bharthi Knitting Co. v. DHL Worldwide, [1996] 4 SCC
          704, Supreme Court has said, "Each case depends upon its own
          facts. In an appropriate case where there is an acute dispute of
          facts necessarily a Tribunal has to refer the parties to original civil
          suit established under CPC or appropriate State law to have the G
          claims dealt with between the parties". Present is certainly a case
          involving an acute dispute.

               "We feel reluctant to require the complainant to knock the
          door of civil court but considering the constraint of time required                  H
    142                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A            to decide this matter, this Commission has its limitations. With
             these observations this compalint is returned."

        The complainant has filed this appeal under Section 23 of the
    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter, the Act for short).

B         Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion
    that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the matter sent back to the
    NCDRC for hearing and decision afresh.

          Shri Harish N. Salve, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has
C   submitted, placing reliance ona three-Judge Bench decision of this Court
    Dr. J.J Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, [2002] 6 SCC 635, Indian
    Medical Association v. VP. Shantha and Ors., [1995] 6 SCC 651 and Amar
    Jwala Paper Mills (India) and Anr. v. State Bank of India, [1998] 8 SCC
    387 that the approach adopted by NCDRC does not deserve to be
D   countenanced. Shri P. Chadambaram, the learned senior counsel for the
    respondent-Bank has supported the impugned order placing reliance
    on Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Ors., [2002]
    2 sec 1.

          It cannot be denied that fora at the National Level, the State level and
E 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 jurisdiction in addition to the
F 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 complicated and detailed procedure
  which at times is accompanied by technicalities. Merely because recording
G 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.

        In the Indian Medical Association case (supra) this Court noticed the
H   powers conferred on the serveral fora under the Act, the procedure
    CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD.'· DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD [LAHOTl,l.]   J43

applicable (including the exercise of some powers of the Civil Court under A
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 B
of lengthy evidence not permissible within the scope of a summary enquiry
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, 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 C
cognizable under the Act has not been taken away. A three-Judge Bench
of this Court recently in Dr. J.J.Merchant & Ors. 's case (supra) 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 hearcl and decided by Civil Court. This Court noticed that the fora under
the Act are specifically empowered to follow such procedure which may D
not require more time 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 ofa detailed and complicated trial and arrive at a just decision of the
case by resorting to the principles of natural justice and following the E
procedue consistent with the principles thereof, also making use of such
of the powers of Civil Courts as are conferred on it. The decisive test is
nc t 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 dek!rmined is whether the questions, though F
complicated they may be, are capable being determined by summary
enquiry i.e. by doing away with the need of a detailed and complicated
method of recording evidence. It has to be rem()mber 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 G
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 :\ct. In Synco Industries
case (supra) this Court upheld that order ofNCDRC holding the complaint H
    144                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B   appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion."

          In Amar Jwala Paper Mills (India) and Anr. 's case (supra) 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.
c
        In Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. 's ca5e (supra) 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
D 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 long-
  drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass
E 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 sould not be curtained 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
F safeguards."
        In our opinion the decision arrived at by the NCDRC is premature.
  The Commission ought to have issued notice to the respondent and taken
  its pleadings on record. Only when the pleadings for both parties were
G available should the Commission hav formed an opinion as to the nature
  and scope of 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 was incapable of being undertaken in a
  summary and speedy manner. Then the Commission could have justifiably
H formed an opinion on the need of diring away the complainant to the Civil
       CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD.'· DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD [LAHOTI,l.]   145

Court. Mere complicated nature of the facts and law arising for decision                       A
would not be decisive.

     The appeal is allowed. The impugned decision of the. National
Commission is set aside. The case is sent back to the Commission for
hearing afresh consistently with the observations made hereinabove. No                         B
order as to the costs.

N.J.                                                                   Appeal allowed.