1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Khem Singh Shankhla Vs. HDFC Bank. Ltd. & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5706/2008 Date of Order : : 22/08/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.J.Gehlot, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the orders Annexure-15 dated 8th of July, 2008 and Annexure-16 dated 6th of August, 2008 have been challenged by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the State Consumer Protection Commission, Rajasthan Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (for short “the Commission” hereinafter) fell in error in summoning witness Ajeet Gulechha in complaint case 2 No.1/2006 instituted by petitioner Khem Singh Shankhla which is pending before the Commission, by order Annexrue-16 dated 6.8.2008, sought to be examined by the State Commission. By order Annexure-15, witness Vijay Maheshwari, Branch Manager of the respondent HDFC Bank was also summoned for cross- examination in order to ascertain the true facts. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-Commission is to decide the complaints under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in some other manner and, therefore, the order impugned is beyond jurisdiction so far as the order summoning the witnesses for examination and cross-examination. Learned counsel has relied on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Co- operative Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 184 and in M/s Yogendra Builders & Anr. Vs. Vidhya Paradise Owners' Welfare Association & Anr., AIR 2008 Andhra Pradesh 31. In CCI Chambers Cooperative Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the fora under the Act is specifically empowered to follow such procedure which will not require more than or delay the proceeding. A Forum under the Act is entitled, and would be justified in evolving a procedure of its own and 3 also by effectively controlling the proceedings so as to do away with the need of a detailed and complicated trial and arrive at a just decision of the case by resorting to the principles of natural justice and following the procedure consistent with the principles thereof, also making use of such of the powers of Civil Court as are conferred on it. It has further been observed that mere complication either of facts or of law cannot be a ground for the denial of hearing by a Forum under the Act. In M/s Yogendra Builders & Anr. Vs. Vidya Pradise Owners' Welfare Association & Anr.(Supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Consumer Protection Act is silent so far as the power relating to appointment of Commissioner to make local inspection is concerned while adjudication of dispute by consumer forum. The procedure to be adopted is summary procedure and all the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as such are not made applicable and certain provisions alone had been specified while conferring powers under S.13(4) of the Act. The Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code as such, may not be applicable but if the Consumer fora, the State Commissions or the National Commission as the case may be, are satisfied that opinion of an expert, specialist, skilled person or any other person of a like nature may be essential for proper adjudication of the dispute, definitely, they can exercise such powers for the purpose of 4 appropriate decision making in relation to the disputes. The Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act” hereinafter) provides the procedure for admission of the complaint. Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act provides for the purpose of this Section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, respectively (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. Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act provides that every proceeding before the District Forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, and the District Forum shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195, and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. From a bare perusal of Sub-sections (4) and (5) of 5 Section 13 of the Act spells out that the Consumer Forum is to evaluate its own procedure as if it is a civil court and more particularly the Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act clearly provides that all the proceedings before the Forum shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings and the Forum is also deemed to be a civil court for certain purposes. Even Sub-section(4) provides the Forum to follow the procedure provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in a certain manners including summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath. Keeping in view the provisions of Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act as also the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my view, the order impugned cannot be said to have been passed beyond jurisdiction of the Forum and on the contrary, it is in conformity with the provisions of law. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme noticed above and relied on by counsel for the petitioner are of no assistance in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. 6 S.B.CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.10161/2008 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5706/2008 Date of order : : 22/08/2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.J.Gehlot, for the petitioner. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK