Magna Nand S/O Late Sh. Chander Dutt vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 278 / 2006. The State Commission vide the said order has affirmed the order dated 29.12.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, holding that the complaint involved complicated question of law and facts requiring elaborate evidence which was not within the domain of a Consumer Fora under the exercise of its summary jurisdiction and, therefore, dismissed the complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate civil court having jurisdiction for the redressal of his grievance. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner / complainant applied for the allotment of a 4 marla plot and on being successful in the draw of lots, was allotted Plot No. 593, Sector - 19, Panchkula. Since the OP HUDA alleged that his application was for reserved category, it demanded the SC/ Domicile Certificate besides an affidavit to that effect which the complainant failed to produce whereas the complainant informed the OP HUDA that he had applied in the General category. In view of this discrepancy, OP HUDA denied the allotment of the said plot which caused him to knock the doors of the District Forum. Before the District Forum, it was the say of the complainant that he had not applied for the allotment of the lot from SC category, but had registered himself for the allotment of a plot from the general category. The complaint was contested by the OP HUDA. On consideration of the respective evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing their counsel, the District Forum arrived at the conclusion that the registration forms placed on record by the complainant and the OP HUDA, differed in its material content inasmuch as in the form submitted by the applicant ''general'' has been incorporated against the category of the applicant and the column SC/ST/OBC category has been left blank. In the application form on the record of OP HUDA, however, it has been clearly mentioned SC against the category of applicant and word ''SC-A'' has been written against the column ''in case of SC/ST/OBC category. Since the discrepancy in the two sets of forms require deep / thorough probe requiring examination, cross-examination and re-examination of witnesses as also that of forensic expert / hand writing experts entailing voluminous documents, the District Forum was of the view that the dispute cannot be resolved / decided in a summary proceeding and, therefore, dismissed the complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach a civil court. Aggrieved thereupon the complainant challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission by filing an appeal which as stated above has been dismissed by the State Commission. Hence, this revision petition.

WE have heard Mr. S.K. Varma, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner on admission of this revision petition. He has contended that both the Fora below have erroneously held that the dispute involved complicated questions of law and facts requiring voluminous evidence. According to him it is a simple matter in which the Fora below was required to compare two application forms. As the handwritings are apparently distinguishable and the interpolation on the application form is clearly discernible, it required no elaborate evidence to be recorded. Relying upon the judgement of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of "J.J. Merchant (Dr.) Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi" [III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)], he has contended that the consumer fora being headed by experienced judicial officers and the objective of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being to protect the interest of the consumer and provide inexpensive and speedy redressal of consumer grievance, the Fora below have failed to exercise their jurisdiction". We have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, two sets of application forms have appeared on the record purportedly made by the petitioner / complainant. While the complainant''s claim is that he applied against the general category, a perusal of the application form on HUDAs record, the word general has been struck off. Off course, without any initial and against SC / ST / OBC category, the word ''SC-A'' has been stated. Both the fora below have held this to be a matter complicated enough requiring thorough investigation and expert opinion etc. and have held this to be a fit case to be referred to a civil court. It may be stated here that the Hon''ble Apex Court in the same judgment i.e. J.J.Merchand (supra) has held that a consumer forum has the discretion to direct a complainant to approach a civil court for appropriate relief in case of complicated issues. In this case, both the fora below in exercise of their jurisdictional discretion have delivered a concurrent finding and in that background our role in exercise of Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on this subject has held as under :- "23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora" .

RESPECTFULLY, drawing support from the observation of the Hon''ble Apex Court as above, we do not find that there is any prima facie jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice in the impugned order, warranting our interference. The revision petition as such is dismissed.