Allegations Of Forgery And Dispute On Existence Of Agreement, Bihar State Commission Directs To Approach Appropriate Forum

Brief Facts:

Mr Rajdeo Jha approached M/S Rose Eent Udyog, a brick kiln business run by Ms Anita Ambar's (“Appellant”) late husband. Allegedly, the Complainant sought to purchase 30,000 bricks for a total price of Rs. 1,38,000/-. Payment for the bricks was purportedly made through two cheques issued. Subsequently, there was a partial fulfilment of the order, with 1250 bricks delivered on 31.05.2015 and an additional 2500 bricks supplied on 03.06.2015. However, the remaining balance of bricks was never delivered.

Following the demise of the Appellant's husband in January 2016, the Complainant made repeated requests for either the outstanding brick delivery or a refund of the paid amount. However, these requests were met with a refusal from the Appellant. The Complainant sent a legal notice to the Appellant. However, there was no satisfactory resolution to the matter. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhubani, Bihar (“District Commission”). The District Commission directed the Appellant to supply the remaining 26,250 bricks to the Complainant or refund Rs. 1,20,750/- for the unsupplied bricks. She was also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- for harassment and Rs. 2,000/- for litigation costs to the Complainant.

Dissatisfied by the order of the District Commission, the Appellant filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (“State Commission”).

Contentions of the Appellant:

The Appellant denied the existence of any agreement between her late husband and the Complainant regarding the supply of bricks for the stated sum of Rs. 1,38,000/-. Instead, she contended that the Complainant received the mentioned amount in cash from the Appellant's husband, which was subsequently returned through two cheques. Moreover, the Appellant disputes the authenticity of the receipts provided by the Complainant, alleging them to be fabricated. She further highlighted that the brick kiln was no longer functional, implying an inability to fulfil any outstanding orders.

Observations by the State Commission:

The State Commission observed that there was an oral agreement between the late husband of the Appellant and the Complainant, involving the payment of Rs. 1,38,000/- through two cheques. The Appellant denied the existence of such an agreement, claiming that the payment was meant to repay a loan taken by the Complainant. A considerable time had elapsed between the alleged agreement, payment, and the initiation of legal proceedings. Meanwhile, the Appellant also filed of an informatory petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) alleging forgery of documents by the Complainant.

Given the complexity of the case and the need for determination of factual intricacies, the State Commission concluded that it was not a straightforward instance of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. Instead, it suggested that the Complainant may find more suitable redressal by pursuing the matter in a Civil Court with competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Commission and granted liberty to the Complainant to pursue the matter before a Civil Court.

Case Title: Anita Ambar vs Rajdeo Jha

Case No.: Appeal No. 237 of 2018

Advocate for the Complainant: Sri Rama Ishwar Chandra

Advocate for the Appellant (Anita Ambar): Sri Pritam Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download The Order