The duty of the complainant to challenge the correctness of reports and statements, the limitation period for filing complaints, and the procedure for enquiry of complaints as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President—This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’), against the order dated 5.2.1999 passed in Case No. 15/94 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshangabad (for short the ‘District Forum’).

2. The respondent No. 1 is a registered Company having its Soya Oil Industry at Itarsi. The respondent No. 1 after taking Marine Policy transported 12:005 metric ton Soya Oil by tanker No. NKC 8323 of the respondent No. 2 - the Carrier on 30.12.1990 to be delivered at Kanpur (Dehat). During transit the tanker to save an accident with a bullock-cart overturned near Begam Ganj as a result of which 7:800 metric ton oil alleged to have fallen on the Kaccha road and fields. The driver of the tanker lodged a report at Police Station Begum Ganj. The respondent No. 1 lodged a claim with the Insurance Company. The respondent No. 1 averred that undamaged oil weighing 4:280 metric ton in the tanker was transhipped to the other tanker while 7:700 metric ton out of 12:005 metric ton was damaged. The total loss was Rs. 1,97,925/- at the rate of Rs. 25,375/- per metric ton was claimed. The Insurance Company appointed Surveyor, V.N. Sarin & Company who vide report dated 22.4.1991 (Ex. D4) assessed the net loss of Rs. 66,245/-. The Insurance Company did not take final decision for long. Lastly, vide letter dated 25.10.1994 Ex. D/9 the claim was repudiated. The respondent No. 1 filed the complaint on 17.12.1993 against the Insurance Company and the Carrier. The complaint was resisted. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the complaint against the Carrier, the respondent No. 2 as barred by time while the complaint against the Insurance Company because of repudiation of the claim on 25.10.1994, which gave cause of action. On the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, a finding of deficiency in service was recorded. The report of the Surveyor stating therein that 5:114 metric ton oil was transhipped in another tanker was disbelieved and damaged quantity of oil was to be of 7:800 metric ton, therefore, District Forum ordered to pay Rs. 1,97,925/- cost of the oil of 7:800 metric ton and to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 1,97,925/- at the rate of 12% p.a. from 1st August, 1991 with Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the proceedings.

3. It may be stated here that the procedure for enquiry of the complaint on receipt of the complaint is prescribed in Section 13 of the Act. A bare look to Section 13 of the Act would show that where a case of deficiency in service involved determination of complex questions of fact and law, which cannot be satisfactorily determined by the Redressal Agencies in summary jurisdiction in the time frame prescribed under the Rules, it would be better for the complainant to seek redress of his grievance in a Civil Court. The record of the case shows that the District Forum held an elaborate enquiry and recorded evidence of the parties on the complex issues, in summary jurisdiction where the evidence is received by affidavits.

4. The driver of the tanker, Arun Kumar Rathore lodged a report Ex. P3 at the Police Station Begam Ganj of the accident stating therein that due to accident the tanker was damaged and small quantity of oil fell on the ground. True, First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the same has been relied by the respondent No. 1 to prove the accident and loss. In case, the respondent No. 1 wanted to challenge the correctness of the report, it was the duty of the respondent No. 1 to examine the driver, the maker of the FIR. The District Forum with an erroneous approach overlooking the law in our opinion illegally held that the driver to save himself and the owner of the tanker wrongly held that the loss of the oil was of small quantity while the loss was much more.

5. It is well-known that a man may tell lie, but the circumstances do not. The photographs ar