Subodh Kumar Bose vs AHEMED HUSSAIN

Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President

HEARD Mr. Das the learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. The complainant-respondent approached the District Forum, Baripada alleging that the Trustee of Sri Daniel Hamilton Trust Estate a charitable institution received Rs. 16,000/- from him as consideration money for collecting various fruits including mangoes from the orchard of the Trust. This was for the years 1991-92, 1992-93. The complainant alleged that even though he paid the amount in full, he was not allowed to collect the fruits nor the Trust refunded the amount. The present appellant filed a version denying the receipt of the consideration money and further claimed that the receipt if any granted was a forged and fabricated one only to suit the purpose of the case. The District Forum on considering the case of the respective parties held that the receipt showing payment of Rs. 16,000/- to the present appellant was a genuine one. It further held that since the complainant was not allowed to collect the fruits during the period of contract, there was deficiency in service and the appellant was to return the amount.

Mr. Das strenuously urged regarding the maintainability of such a case before the Consumer Forum, arguing that the case is out and out a case between the lessor and lessee and the very dispute being civil in nature the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this.

WE have gone through the records and perused the judgment of the lower Forum. So far as the finding of the genuineness of the document is concerned, we would be slow to give any opinion in such a finding since we would agree with the submission of Mr. Das that if it is a question of fraud etc. the matter has to be decided by competent Civil Court. WE do not like to subscribe our opinion on this. But we would like to hold that the Forum has accepted the case of the complainant to the extent that the document is a genuine one. This finding of the Forum cannot be said to be incorrect or without jurisdiction, merely because such a dispute could be decided by the Civil Court. District Forum has held that the onus of proving fraud was on opposite party who alleged fraud which they have failed to prove. We accept the finding to be correct. It is revealed from the materials that there was a 107 proceedings before the parties. And secondly it is not the case of the opposite party that the complainant had in fact plucked any fruits from the Orchard of the Trust and thus the opposite party was bound to refund the money. The direction of the District Forum is correct. Appeal dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.