Y. Krishan, Member:— The State Commission of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal in Original Complaint No. 2 of 1990 vide its order dated 18th September, 1991 declined to entertain the complaint and left the complainant to seek other remedies as he might be advised. In coming to this finding the State Commission has framed issues on four points. These are briefly indicated below along with the findings of the State Commission.
Point No 1: The State Commission found that the Complainant had moved MRTP Commission on similar allegations of unfair practices and sought identical reliefs. It found further that the complaint before the State Commission was filed on 15th April, 1990 but the proceedings before the MRTP Commission were initiated on 29th March, 1990 but these facts were suppressed in the complaint before the State Commission.
The State Commission came to the conclusion that the subject matter of the complaint before it and before the MRTP Commission was the same and therefore the complaint was not entertainable by the State Commission as this would have involved a simultaneous and parallel adjudication on the same complaint by two different authorities.
Secondly the State Commission held that Respondents & Opposite Parties Nos. 4 & 5-Premier Automobiles Ltd. (PAL) were excluded from the mischief of the MRTP Act and as such could not be arraigned before the Consumer Forum.
Point No. 2: On the second point in issue the State Commission has held that the cause of action in this case partly arise in Raipur and therefore the State Commission of Madhya Pradesh had jurisdiction.
Print No. 3: On the third point in issue the State Commission held that there was absence of privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Parties No. 4 & 5-Premier Automobiles Ltd. It observed that the sales by the Opposite Parties No. 4 & 5-Premier Automobiles Ltd. were on principal to principal basis the PAL dealer Opposite Party No. 3 is not an agent of the PAL. In other words, Respondent Nos. 4 & 5-PAL did not admit having received any amount as consideration for the alleged sale of the car to the complainant.
Print No. 4: On point No. 4 in issue the State Commission held that the complainant had alleged fraud and cheating and unauthorised use of PAL's Logos and Monogrammes by Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2. This necessarily meant that the facts are complicated and determination of the facts require elaborate oral and documentary evidence regarding fraud and cheating as such.
2. The State Commission pertinently noted that the receipt of the amount paid by the complainant was not on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 4 & 5-PAL but it was a receipt of Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 and that receipt was silent that the amount paid was towards the price of the car.
3. The complainant has come in appeal against the order of the State Commission declining to adjudicate on the complaint.
4. At the hearing the appellant was unable to explain why he made payment partly in the form of Demand Draft for Rs. 80,000/- and partly in the form of cash of Rs. 19,510/. It remained unexplained as to why he made the payment to Opposite Perties Nos. 1 & 2 who were not the authorised dealers of Opposite Parties Nos. 4 & 5-PAL. In fact, Opposite parties Nos. 4 & 5 have been brought into the picture on the ground that the bank draft of Rs. 80,000/- is said to have been credited in the PAL's account not directly but through their authorised agent-Opposite Party No. 3 (M/s. Guru Gobind Motors. Bombay).
5. The appellant also failed to attack the contention of Opposite Party Nos. 4 & 5 that their sales to their agents are on principal to principal basis hence they were not privy to the contract for the sale of a car for which consideration is said to have been paid to Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2.
6. It is evident from above that it is not a case of supply of defective goods or of deficiency in rendering service. Prima facie it is a case of fraud and cheating as alleged by the appellant-complainant himself. Consequently, the factum of fraud and cheating would have to be established first before a consumer forum can arrive at a finding of deficiency in service. We agree with the view expressed by the State Commission that the Consumer Protection Act and the machinery thereunder cannot be effectively utilised for determining complicated questions of fraud and cheating. The appeal is rejected and the order of the State Commission is confirmed. The appellant should pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs to Opposite Parties Nos. 4 & 5.