The District Forum has the discretion to refuse to entertain a complaint if the issues involved are too complicated and contentious for summary consumer jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President — The unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar merely relegating him to his remedy in the Civil Court in view of the somewhat contentious issues involved. Since this appeal is concluded against the appellant by the binding precedent of the National Commission in I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC) M/s Special Machines Karnal v. Punjab National Bank & Others; and a host of decisions following the same, it is unnecessary to delve into the facts and merits of the case.

2. It suffices to mention that the somewhat curious and vague case of the complainant-appellant was that he had got made certain gold ornaments from the respondent-jewellers and later on checking the same, he found them of somewhat inferior quality.

The further allegation was that the respondent had extended some oral assurance to replace the ornaments with those of the requisite quality and on failing to do so, to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- by the 15th of July, 1992. The respondent having failed to abide by his promise, the somewhat sketchy complaint was preferred before the District Forum.

3. On notice being issued, the respondent stoutly and categorically denied all the allegations in the complaint. It was the stand that the appellants had never got any ornaments prepared from them. The explanation for the preferring of the false complaint was that the complainant’s wife had sold three bangles weighting 25 to 26 gms. against a payment of Rs. 9300/-. The firm suggestion was that the proceedings were a mischievous method of exerting pressure for extorting more money with regard to the latter trasaction. The appellants filed a replication in which for the first time, they suggested the issuance of receipt about the ornaments in dispute and in return controverted the case set up by the respondents, with regard to the sale of the ornaments by the complainant’s wife to them.

4. The District Forum noticed that the complainant had not even mentioned the date when he had got the ornaments made from the respondent; that in the complaint there was no mention of any receipt having been issued to him; that in the replication a new case was sought to be set up by the complainant with regard to an alleged receipt dated the 9th of July, 1992; that reliance was being placed on a mere chit which on the face of it neither bore any date not signature or the initials of anybody; and that there was a patent discrepancy even in the said chit. On that premise the District Forum opined that the appellant’s case could not possibly be accepted on the said sketchy foundations and in view of the categoric controversion of every fact alleged by the respondents, the same would obviously need a mass of intricate evidence including perhaps that of the hand-writing experts with regard to the chit relied upon. Consequently, the District Forum stayed its hand and relegated the appellant to the Civil Court.

5. Mr. O.P. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the appellant with great persistance had first contended that the lis herein was not complicated or contentious and in the alternative that the appellant should at least have been allowed to lead evidence to the hilt before being non-suited.

6. We are afraid that there is no modicum of merit in the said submission. The broad conspectus and the infirmities in the appellant’s case pointedly noticed by the District Forum would leave no manner of doubt that in order to succeed, the appellant would have to lead a mass of evidence, which would inevitably be assailed by the respondent because of the total denial of the claim by the latter. Since the documents relied upon were not admitted and in fact insinuated to be fabricated and forged/ these would have to be established by hand-writing experts on either side. It is well settled that such an exercise is not to be easily indulged in within the summary consumer jurisdiction.

7. The alternative argument of Mr. Sharma that the appellant shoul