AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Taken up through video conferencing.
None is present for the Complainant.
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate, is present for the Opposite Party No. 1.
None is present for the Opposite Party No. 2.
On 28.09.2020, also, when the case was last taken up by the bench, none was present for the Complainant, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate was present for the Opposite Party No. 1 and none was present for the Opposite Party No. 2. Then, on 17.11.2020, also, in proceedings before the Court Master, none was present for the Complainant, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate was present for the Opposite Party No. 1 and none was present for the Opposite Party No. 2.
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 submits that the facts and nature of the case are such that it is better adjudged in a civil court, rather than in summary proceedings before this Commission.
Sufficient opportunity, and more, has been afforded to the Complainant to argue its case.
Albeit, the Complaint could be dismissed in default in the absence of the Complainant.Rather, however, perused the entire material on record.
Noting the entire material on record, and the specificities of the evidence involved, this matter, for apt adjudication on merit, to do justice to it, requires recording of extensive oral evidence and proving extensive documentary evidence as per the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and adherence to the substantive and procedural provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that is best undertaken in a civil court.
In other words, the matter, as discernible from the entire material on record, and from the specificities of the evidence involved, is not found to be such as can be aptly adjudicated on merit in summary proceedings by quasi-judicial Consumer Protection Fora established under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (new Act 2019).
In the light of the afore,
[a] the Complaint is returned, un-adjudicated; and
[b] the Complainant is granted liberty to seek remedy in a competent civil court as per the law.
It goes without saying that the right of the Complainant to agitate its case before any competent authority remains unaffected.
But quasi-judicial Fora established under the Act 1986 (new Act 2019), to provide additional remedy to Consumers, in summary proceedings, are not for it.
It also goes without saying that the Complainant, if it chooses to bring action in a civil court, is free to file application under Sections 5 and 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963, and, in such contingency, the chronological proceedings in this Commission would be material and relevant towards making such application.
It is made explicit that this Commission has consciously refrained from entering into the merits of the matter, or to make a critique, since the right of the Complainant to seek remedy in a competent civil court or to agitate its case before any competent authority survives, and this Commission does not in any manner want to colour the vision of any court / authority.
It is also made explicit that this Order has been passed on considering the particular facts and specificities of the instant matter, as evinced from its record.
So disposed.
A copy each of this Order be sent to all parties within three days from today.
The Order dated 26.11.2020 of this Commission is self-contained and self-speaking. We find no error apparent, or any reason evident, to recall the said Order.
The miscellaneous application is dismissed.
The Order dated 26.11.2020 stands as it stood.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the complaint and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.