MARIO R. PAREIRA vs ELESBAO PAREIRA

THIS appeal arises against the order, dated 10.2.1993 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Panji in complaint No. 302/DF/92 declining to adjudicate the complaint on the ground that there are disputed questions of facts and laws.

IT is the case of the Appellant in his complaint that in pursuance to an advertisement published in "The Navhind Times'' dated 18.3.1991, he contacted the Respondent for an interview for the post of Electrician in Behrain and because he completed all the formalities he paid Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent as part payment out of total amount of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-which was supposed to be total cost/ charges to provide for a job in the Gulf along with the necessary accommodation. The Appellant, then proceeded to Bombay as per directions of the Respondent and on 25.6.1992 he landed in Bahrain where he was received by a driver of a Gulf Company and after having met Mr. Haridas at the Bahrain office he was dumped along with his luggage at Salmania Quran Centre where he was neither provided food nor shelter. The Appellant got sick and when, after recovery from his illness, he contacted Mr. Haridas, he was told to return to Goa. On his return to Goa the Appellant approached the Consumer District Forum. The Respondent filed his written version in which he has admitted that the Appellant was selected for the overseas job by him. The Respondent stated that the Appellant was employed as Electrician on his arrival in Bahrain and that the Appellant fell home sick and was not willing to continue to work in Bahrain and on his request Mr. Haridas sent him back to India.

The District Forum, after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint since there were many disputed questions of facts and laws.

WE heard Mr. N.N. Sardessai, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Ulhas Shetye, learned Advocate for the Respondent. Mr. N.N. Sardessai, learned Advocate for the Appellant vehemently argued that there were no mixed questions of law and facts involved in this case and that the District Forum could very well decide the complaint based on the evidence produced. Mr. N.N. Sardessai, Advocate for the Appellant further submitted that the evidence produced by him was enough for the District Forum to grant him the compensation prayed for by him. On the other hand, Mr. Ulhas Shetye, learned Advocate for the Respondent stated that detailed inquiry was required to be conducted in the present case and the inquiry before the Consumer Courts, being summary in nature, it would not be possible for the Consumer Courts to decide the mixed questions of law and fact involved in this case, and accordingly, the District Forum had rightly rejected the complaint on this ground Mr. U. Shetye, learned Advocate for the Respondent also submitted that the Respondent came back to India from Bahrain since he was feeling home sick, and as such, he was not entitled for any compensation. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for the parties. We have gone through the records and proceedings of the District Forum and we find that there are no mixed questions of law and fact involved in this case requiring to take recourse to Civil Courts. Section 13(2)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stipulates that the District Forum shall, if the complaint received by it under Section 12 relates to goods in respect of which procedure specified in Sub-section (1) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services where the opposite party, on receipt of the complaint, referred to him under Clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the Consumer dispute:- (i) On the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the Complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or (ii) On the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the Complainant where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum. Therefore, it is the duty of the Consumer Courts to decide the complaints on the available evidence and taking recourse to Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, if need be. Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible. Proof means such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to conclusion.

IF the Consumer Courts shy away in deciding the consumer disputes simply holding that there are mixed questions of law and fact to be decided by the Civil Courts, then, the very purpose for which the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted would be defeated. In the instant case, we hold that with the available material before it the District Court ought to have decided the Consumer dispute. Accordingly, we pass the following order. ORDER With the above observations, we set aside the order dated 10.2.1993, passed by the District Forum in complaint No. 302/DF/92 and we remand the complaint to District Forum to decide the same after affording the parties to lead evidence and after giving them an opportunity to be heard. We direct the District Forum to decide the said complaint within thirty days from the date the parties appear before it. Costs of Rs. 200/- to be paid by the Respondent to the appellant. Appeal allowed with costs.