ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. In this complaint filed under Section 21 of the
Consumer Protection Act, there is a claim of compensation
amounting to Rs. 3, 62,62,000/-. This amount comprises as
under:-
2. In the written version filed by the Respondent, not
only these claims have been repudiated there is a challenge to
the (SIC) locus of the complaint in filing the complaint. The
case also requires interpretation of Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites
and Building Rules,. 1973 and other provisions. The amount of
claims would itself show that evidence would have to be voluminous
both originally and documentary. In our jurisdiction, it is not
possible to decide such a case of complicated issues. A three
judge bench in Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner &
Jaipur and Ors. has held as under:-
“Given the nature of the claim in the
complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of
Rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of
Rupees sixty lakhs for covering the cost of
travelling and other expenses incurred by the
appellant, it is obvious that very detailed
evidence would have to be led, both to prove the
claim and thereafter to prove the damages and
expenses. It is, therefore, in any event, not an
appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a
summary fashion. The National Commission was right
in giving to the Appellant liberty to move the
Civil Court. This is an appropriate claim for a
Civil Court to decide and, obviously, was not filed
before a Civil Court to start with because, before
the consumer forum, any figure in damages can be
claimed without having to pay court fees. This, in
that sense, is an abuse of the process of the
Consumer Forum”.
3. We would, therefore, not like to entertain this
complaint. It is only at the initial stages, even pleadings are
not complete. We, therefore, reject this petition but this order
will not, in any event, debar the Complainant in pursuing his
remedies however in the civil Court or any other appropriate
forum. The complaint will also be entitled to take advantage
of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act (See: (19+95) 3 Section 583). In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Synco
Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, this original
petition is dismissed.