- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
United India Insurance Co. v. Mohd. Afzal Lone And Ors.
Structured Summary of the Court Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This writ petition challenges the order dated 7-7-2004 (the "impugned order") passed by respondent No. 2, the Jammu & Kashmir State Consumer Protection Commission, Srinagar, in the consumer complaint titled Mohammad Afzal Lone v. United India Insurance Co. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing that order.
Procedurally, respondent No.1 (the complainant in the consumer proceeding) filed a consumer complaint under the Jammu & Kashmir Consumer Protection Act before respondent No.2. The petitioner (the opposite party in that complaint) filed a written version and raised preliminary objections asserting that (a) disputed questions of fact were involved that could not be summarily adjudicated by the Commission and (b) the complainant relied on documents alleged to be tampered, fabricated or manipulated, asking for either return of the complaint or production of originals for inspection.
Respondent No.2 initially posted the matter for arguments on the preliminary objections and subsequently passed the impugned order directing the parties to proceed with the merits, to produce evidence (by affidavits) and to address the jurisdictional point at the final stage.
At the hearing before the writ court, counsel for respondent No.1 stated that the petition may be disposed of without filing objections; that statement was recorded.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the State Consumer Commission (respondent No.2) is capable of determining complicated questions of fact and law in a consumer complaint under the Jammu & Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, or whether such matters must be relegated to a Civil Court.
- Whether the impugned order dated 7-7-2004, which directed the parties to proceed with merits and record evidence while reserving jurisdictional points for final arguments, is legally tenable and therefore not liable to be quashed by certiorari.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The State Commission cannot determine the dispute because complicated questions of law and fact are involved which, the petitioner contends, cannot be resolved by the summary procedure followed by the Commission.
- The complainant (respondent No.1) is alleged to rely on manipulated, fabricated and tampered documents; those factual disputes cannot be resolved by the Commission summarily.
- The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment (referred to in the opinion as Saushish Diamonds Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) to support the position that this matter was not fit for summary disposal by the Commission.
Respondent's Arguments (Respondent No.2 / Complainant's Position as recorded)
- The insurance policy itself was not in dispute; the only dispute related to the insured amount. That, it was contended, could be adjudicated by the State Commission.
- Although the petitioner alleged tampering/manipulation of documents, that contention did not place the policy itself in dispute and was thus a matter capable of being determined by the Commission by recording evidence.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| AIR 2004 SC 184 (reproduced paras 7 and 10 in the opinion) | Establishes that the decisive test for entertainability by a consumer forum is whether the questions, however complicated, are capable of being determined by a summary enquiry; mere complication of facts or law is not a ground to deny hearing before a forum under the Act. Also stresses that a Commission should issue notice and take pleadings before forming an opinion that a matter requires detailed investigation unsuitable for summary disposal. | The court relied on this authority to hold that the correct test is whether the questions can be resolved summarily and that respondent No.2 should have the opportunity to record evidence; this precedent fortified the conclusion that the impugned order directing evidence and continuation of proceedings was proper. |
| AIR 2002 SC 568 (Synco Industries case) — cited within the reproduced passage | Illustrates a contrasting example where the Supreme Court upheld NCDRC's decision that a complaint was not fit to be tried under the Act because very detailed evidence would have to be led, making summary disposal inappropriate. | The opinion cites Synco Industries to explain the circumstances where a forum may decline to proceed under the Act (i.e., when detailed evidence is inevitably necessary). The court used this discussion to distinguish cases where summary disposal is inappropriate from the present case. |
| Saushish Diamonds Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (referred to by petitioner) | Relied upon by the petitioner to argue that the matter was not fit for summary adjudication by the State Commission. | The court noted that the judgment was relied upon by the petitioner but expressly held that the judgment relied upon was not applicable to the present case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded by identifying the core statutory framework governing consumer fora powers and procedure. It examined sub-clauses 4, 5 and 6 of Section 11 and Section 16 of the Jammu & Kashmir Consumer Protection Act as reproduced in the opinion, highlighting provisions that vest powers in the Divisional Forum (and, by extension, the State Commission) akin to those of a Civil Court: summoning and enforcing attendance of witnesses, examining witnesses on oath, discovery and production of documents, reception of evidence on affidavits, requisitioning reports from laboratories or relevant sources, issuing commissions for examination of witnesses, and other prescribed matters.
The court emphasized that these procedural and evidentiary powers enable the forums under the Act to conduct inquiries and determine disputes even when matters involve complex questions of fact or law. The relevant legal test, according to the court, is not whether questions are complicated in abstract but whether they can be determined by summary enquiry allowed under the Act.
Applying that test to the facts before it, the court observed that the principal factual controversy — whether documents relied upon by the complainant were fabricated, forged or manipulated — was, despite being complicated, within the ambit of matters that the Commission could determine after recording evidence. The impugned order had effectively required the parties to proceed to produce evidence (by affidavits) and reserved the jurisdictional point for final argument, which the court found consistent with the Commission's statutory powers.
The court reinforced its reasoning by reference to the Supreme Court authority (AIR 2004 SC 184), which states that mere complication of facts or law is not decisive; what matters is whether the questions can be resolved by summary inquiry. The court contrasted such a standard with the Synco Industries authority in which the NCDRC's decision to decline summary adjudication was upheld because very detailed evidence would have been required — a factual situation distinguished from the present case.
On these bases, the court concluded that respondent No.2 had not exceeded its jurisdiction or abused the process of law in passing the impugned order, and that the order was legally tenable.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition is DISMISSED. The court held that the impugned order dated 7-7-2004 passed by respondent No.2 (J & K State Consumer Protection Commission, Srinagar) is legally tenable and was passed within the jurisdiction vested in that Commission. The petitioner's challenge to that order was rejected and all connected CMP(s) were dismissed.
Implications:
- The immediate consequence is that the consumer complaint remains before the State Commission and the parties were correctly directed to proceed with recording evidence and addressing jurisdictional points at the final stage as ordered by respondent No.2.
- The court found no abuse of process in the Commission's handling of the preliminary objection and did not require referral of the matter to a Civil Court on the basis that complicated questions of fact or law were involved.
- The opinion does not purport to lay down a novel precedent beyond applying established Supreme Court guidance that the decisive consideration for forums under the Act is whether matters are amenable to summary enquiry; the court noted that the judgment relied on by the petitioner was not applicable here.
Petition dismissed.
1. By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7-7-2004 (hereinafter, for short impugned order), passed by respondent No. 2 (J & K State Consumer Protection Commission, Srinagar) in complaint titled Mohammad Afzal Lone v. United India Insurance Co. on the grounds taken in the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 stated at Bar that this petition be disposed of without filing objections. His statement is taken on record.
3. It appears that respondent No. 1 filed consumer complaint under Jammu & Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, hereinafter for short the “Act”, before respondent No. 2. Petitioner applicant in the complaint disputed the claim of respondent No. 1 by filing the written version before J & K State Consumer Protection Commission, Srinagar. It is profitable to reproduce Paras 3 and 4 of preliminary objections of the written version filed by petitioner before the State Commission, herein, which read as under:—
“3. That the complaint of the complainant is also not maintainable as disputed questions of fact are involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Hon'ble Commission during the course of its summary trial as the voluminous evidence from the parties is to be recorded which cannot be done during the course of summary trial, as such, the complaint deserves to be returned for its presentation before appropriate forum/Civil Court.
4. That the complaint of the complainant is also not maintainable in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as the complainants in their complaint have tried to take benefit of tampered, fabricated and manipulated document. It is submitted that if this Hon'ble Commission is not pleased to return the complaint of the complainant at the very threshold, then in the alternative this Hon'ble Commission may direct the complainants to produce the original copy of the document which has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure-A and in case original of the same is produced before this Hon'ble Commission, the Hon'ble Commission will definitely come to know about the malicious designs and intentions of the complainants.
4. Respondent No. 2, in terms of order dated 5th May, 2004, posted the complaint for arguments in view of the preliminary objections. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 passed order dated 7th July, 2004, impugned in this petition. It is profitable to reproduce the impugned order herein, which reads as under:—
“L/C for parties present. Heard regarding jurisdiction part. L/C for P. contends that insurance policy is regarding only Rs. 6 lacs not for 40 lacs as claim is being made by counsel for complainant. According to O.P it is Civil Court which has jurisdiction. Point of fact is involved. Evidence is to be produced regarding the jurisdiction point also. So let the parties proceed with the merits of the case and produce full evidence through affidavits. At the final stage of arguments jurisdictional point also shall be addressed to put up for evidence of complainant on 5-8-2004.”
8. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 cannot determine the dispute because complicated questions of law and fact are involved. While elaborating the argument, argued that complainant, respondent No. 1, is relying on the documents which are manipulated, fabricated and tampered. The State Commission cannot determine the said questions. He cited a judgment of the Apex Court reported in Supreme Court on Consumer Protection Judgments, Page 147, titled as Saushish Diamonds Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
6. Learned counsel for respondent argued that the policy is not in dispute but the dispute is about the insured amount. It is alleged by the petitioner (respondent in the complaint) that respondent No. 1, herein, (complainant) has tampered, manipulated and fabricated the documents. Thus, the insurance policy is not in any way in dispute and this question can be adjudicated and determined by respondent No. 2, State Commission.
7. Heard. Perused. Considered.
8. Admit. With the consensus of learned counsel for parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
9. It appears that after hearing the arguments, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order and came to the conclusion that preliminary objection raised is a mixed question of fact and law which could not be determined without leading evidence and accordingly directed complainant to lead evidence.
10. The aim object and purpose of the Act is to promote and protect the rights and interests of the consumers and provide them speedy and simple redressal of the grievances on less expenses. Accordingly, the Legislature in its wisdom, in order to achieve the said goal have in terms of the Act provided various forums wherefrom the consumers can seek redressal of the grievances. All the Forums are quasi judicial forums/bodies have to hear and determine the issues summarily while observing principles of natural justice and all the forums can evolve their own procedure.
11. The remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the remedy available to the complainant and it is not in derogation of any law for the time being in force.
12. The moot question for consideration is, whether the forums under the Act are in a position and capable to determine complicated questions of fact and law?
13. I am of the considered view that test is not that the complicated questions of fact and law must be involved in the complaint but the test is whether the questions can be determined summarily by respondent No. 2. If the Commission is of the opinion that the question(s) can be decided after recording the evidence in terms of the mandate of provisions of the Act, then the Commission cannot ask the complainant to knock the doors of Civil Court.
14. If forum(s) are in a position and capable to determine complicated questions of fact and law under the Act, then the complaint under the Act is maintainable and the forum(s) have jurisdiction to try the matter. If the questions are such which cannot be decided by the Forum(s) summarily, then the forum(s) under the Act cannot entertain such complaints.
15. In order to determine the issue, it is necessary to notice sub-clauses 4, 5 and 6 of Section 11 and Section 16 of the Act, herein, which read as under:—
“11(4). For the purposes of this section, the Divisional Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, Samvat 1977 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:—
(i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath;
(ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence;
(iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits;
(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source;
(v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; and
(vi) any other matter which may be prescribed.
11(5) Every proceeding before the Divisional Forum shall be deemed to be a Judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Ranbir Penal Code, and the Divisional Forum shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989.
11(6). Where the complainant is a consumer referred in sub-clause (iv) of Clause (b) of Section 2, the provisions of Rule 8 of Order 1 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, Samvat 1977 shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint or the order of the Divisional Forum thereon.
16. Procedure applicable to State Commission. The procedure specified in Sections 10, 11 and 12 and under the rules made thereunder for the disposal of complaints by the Divisional Forum shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by the State Commission.”
16. While going through these provisions of law, the State/Divisional Forums under the Act can, summon witnesses and enforce the attendance of any defendant or witness, examine the witnesses on oath also issue summon for production of documents or any other material object producible as evidence, and also requisition the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source.
17. Clause (v) of sub-clause 4 of Section 11 of the Act empowers forums under the Act to examine witnesses on commission.
18. While going through the pleadings it appears that the question is whether the documents relied by the complainant (respondent No. 1) are fabricated, forged or manipulated? No doubt the question is complicated one but can be determined by the Commission while keeping in view the discussions made hereinabove and the provisions of Act.
19. I am of the considered view that it cannot be said and held that if complicated question(s) of fact or law is (are) involved the complainant is to be asked to go to civil Court. Respondent No. 2 has rightly passed the impugned order. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment reported in AIR 2004 SC 184. It is profitable to reproduce relevant portion of Para 7 and Para 10 herein, which read as under:—
“7. …………………The decisive test is not 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 determined is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of 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 remembered that the for a under the Act at every level are headed by experienced person. 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 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 Act. In Synco Industries case, (AIR 2002 SC 568) (supra) this Court upheld the order of NCDRC holding the complaint 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 an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion.
10. 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 available should 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 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.”
20. In view of the above facts, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is legally tenable and respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order in terms of the jurisdiction vested with it and the impugned order is not in any way abuse of the process of law.
It is pertinent to mention herein, that judgment relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand.
In the given circumstances, writ petition is dismissed along with all connected CMP(s).
Petition dismissed.
Alert