(Delivered on 12/01/2021)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1. Petitioner- Mr. Zoeb S. Vali has preferred  the present  revision  petition  feeling  aggrieved  by the  order  dated 22/03/2019 passed by the  learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint  No. 148/2015 by which  the application filed by the  petitioner /applicant  for sending  the document  to Hand Writing  Expert  came to be rejected. (Petitioner and respondent shall be referred as O.P. and complainant hereinafter for sake of convenience.)

2. Short facts leading to the filing  of the present  revision petition   may be narrated  as under:-

            Complainant – T. R. Sukumar had entered into an agreement with the O.P.- Mr.  Zoeb S. Vali who claim to be builder and developer for development and construction of plot No.  4 in City Survey No. 511 of Mouza Mankapur and  the consideration was fixed for Rs. 70,000/-. Complainant also parted with an amount of Rs. 65,000/- and sale deed was also executed. Complainant  has alleged that subsequently  he had paid  the sum of Rs. 8,500/ and Rs. 2,800/- on 06/01/1988 and O.P. had  promised  to pay the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on maturity after 25 years but  the same  was never  paid and so  aggrieved by the same Consumer Complaint  came to be filed before the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.  During the pendency of the complaint  the O.P. filed its written version  denying   the allegations  and also filed an application  stating that  the endorsement  and stamp on the receipt  dated 06/01/1988 was forged  by the  complainant  and the document was not  a genuine document at all. The O.P.  therefore, filed  an application  making   a prayer that  the document namely receipt No. 355, dated 06/01/1988 be sent for  expert’s opinion to Hand Writing Expert   for  finding the  genuineness of alleged  endorsement  but the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur  rejected the  said application on  22/03/2019 on the  grounds mentioned  therein .  It is against this impugned order dated 22/03/2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur that the present petitioner – Zoeb S. Vali has come up in revision.

3.         We have heard Mr. Rahate, learned advocate for the revision petitioner as well as respondent in person. We have also gone through the written notes of argument filed by both the parties on record. On the basis of the facts stated above  only point  which  arises  for our determination  is as  under  with  our finding recorded  thereon and reasons  to follow. 

Reasons for finding :-

4.         It is not in dispute  at all   that during the  pendency of the  Consumer Complaint that the application  filed by the O.P. for  sending  the alleged  document namely receipt  No. 355 dated 06/01/1988 to the Hand Writing  Expert  had come  to be rejected.

5.         At the outset  it is strenuously submitted  by Mr. Rahate, learned advocate  for the  petitioner /O.P. that  the  learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur had not  taken into consideration  several  aspects which were mentioned  in the application  and erroneously  rejected the application. Mr. Rahate, learned advocate  for the  petitioner  has submitted  that  the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur had not taken into consideration  a very crucial   aspect   that the opinion   of the Hand Writing  Expert  was not being  sought  with  respect   to the  signature  or hand writing  of the O.P. at all  but it was  relating  to Seal and Rubber Stamp of O.P. which was put  on the alleged receipt dated 06/01/1988.  Secondly, Mr. Rahate, learned advocate for the revision petitioner has submitted that the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur has also not taken  into consideration  the aspect that  there was no mention  in notice that  the  complainant had claimed the sum of Rs. 8,500/- as  deposit nor claimed rested  on the basis  of maturity  value  of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The petitioner has also taken a  specific stand that in spite of notice to produce the said  document  the respondent  had failed to produce the said document from  his possession. Mr. T.R. Sukumar, respondent who has appeared in person strongly rebutted this contention. Initially it is submitted by the respondent that the present petition has been filed with ulterior motive  to delay the proceeding.  Mr. T.R. Sukumar, respondent  has supported the findings given by the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur and has further  submitted  that   it was not mandatory  or necessary for the  District Consumer Forum to seek  expert opinion in every case   and it was  open to  the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur  to  exercise  discretion and   give findings by comparing  the signature with   naked  eye and without  calling the Hand Writing Expert. In other words the respondent has submitted that the opinion of  Hand Writing Expert was not at all necessary  in  every case.   On this aspect  Mr. T.R. Sukumar-respondent  has placed  reliance  upon   series  of authorities  which are  as under.

1. State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Manikantan Nair, reported  in AIR 2001 SC 2145.
2. Lalit Popil Vs. Canara Bank, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1795.
3. Smt. Renu Devi Kedia Vs. Smt. Seetha Devi, reported in AIR 2005 AP 180
4. Narpat Singh Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, reported in AIR 2008 SC 77.
5. American Hybrid Seeds (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sheshrao S. Kale, reported in 2009(4) CPR 299.
6. V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 513.
7. Satyendra Kumar Vs. Raj Nath Dubey, reported in AIR 2016 SC 2231.
8. Pamu Padmavathi Vs. Perati Yakub Reddy, reported in 2008(2) ALT 483.
9. Shiv Kumar  Agarwal Vs. Arun Tondon & Anr., reported in  1(2007)CPJ 321 (NC).

6.         We have carefully gone through these authorities  which have been  cited by the  respondent – T.R. Sukumar  and  sum and substance  of these authorities  is also  that  the opinion of  the Hand Writing Expert  need not be called  in every case and discretion can be exercised  but it is necessary  to turn to facts case of the O.P. to  decide the present  revision  petition. In the present  case  before us the O.P. has not  disputed  or sought expert opinion  as regard the  hand writing or signature  but  has questioned  the endorsement  put  on the receipt  as well as  genuineness  of  the  seal as is clear in para 2 of  application. But it seems  that  the learned  District Consumer Forum, Nagpur  has not  taken  into consideration  this aspect which was mentioned  in the application itself and has  erroneously come to the conclusion  that  the hand writing   was clear and similar. It was  thus necessary  for the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur  to examine  the document namely  receipt No. 355 in the light of contents  of the application filing by petitioner.

7.         During the course of arguments, we have also gone through the copy of said receipt No. 355 dated 06/01/1988 as well as   the seal and endorsement. However, we do not feel it necessary or proper to give finding on the said aspect or to decide the application.  On the other  hand, we are of the view  that  it would be  in the  fitness of things if the matter is remanded  to the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur  for fresh  consideration  in the light  of submissions  made  as well as  the  contents of the application.  We therefore, feel it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 22/03/2019 passed on exhibit No. 14 in Consumer Complaint No. 148/2015 and to remand the same to the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. Accordingly, we direct the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur to decide an application afresh after hearing both the parties and proceed to decide the complaint.  Accordingly, we pass the following order.   

ORDER

1. Revision Petition  is partly allowed.
2. Order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur dated 22/03/2019 in Consumer Complaint No. 148/2015 is hereby set aside.
3. Matter is remanded to the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.
4. Learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur to decide the application filed by petitioner  afresh  after hearing  both the parties and  dispose of the  complaint  as early as possible.
5. Copy of order be furnished  to both the  parties, free of cost.