Summary proceedings cannot decide cases involving complicated questions of law and facts, and allegations of fraud, cheating, and extortion of money. Such cases are of a purely civil nature and should be decided by the Civil Court.

Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—The complainant in this summary proceeding, where the record of the case is in more than 400 pages, has filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 19,98,000/- (Rupees nineteen lacs ninety eight thousand) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24%. By an amendment application dated 9.4.2003, the relief portion was clarified and amended even in respect of interest rate.

2. The facts of the case will show that this is not a consumer dispute and complicated and intricate questions are involved in the case. There are also allegations of fraud, etc., which cannot be decided, in summary proceedings by Consumer Foras. We shall scan the pleadings in this light.

3. It is pleaded that the complainant planned to instal their plant for solvent extraction with vacuum evaporator for production of herb powder in their factory at F-19 Industrial Area-2, Hardwar. The complaint has been filed by M/s. Indian Phytochem, a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956. The complaint has been filed by a company and prima facie, there is a dispute of business activity and commercial transaction.

4. In para 2 of the complaint, it is alleged that the opposite party Sh. S.K. Banerjee, Managing Director of Driam Chotebroske Asia Industries Ltd. assured to get designed, fabricated, installed and commissioned the said plant within six weeks and a minute was signed by the opposite party on 17.6.2000. The opposite party agreed to complete the design work immediately against a lumpsum payment of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand).

5. In para 4 of the complaint, it is alleged that in fact the opposite party gave this alluring offer in name of special favour just to trap the complainant so that they may extract money from them in many other ways. The work, which was to be completed with by the end of July 2000, could after a great chase-up has not been completed till December, 2001. Thus what is pleaded in para 4 of the complaint is that the opposite party made this offer to trap the complainant. The Consumer Forum in summary proceedings will not decide the case of trapping.

6. In para 6 of the complaint, it is said that on the assurances of the opposite party, the complainant had with complete trust and full belief given the desired liberty to the opposite party to complete the work by the end of July, 2000. It means that the Consumer Fora has to decide whether the complainant has put in complete trust and full belief. This is not of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras. In para 8, it is alleged that the opposite party pressurized the complainant to give another sum and took away Rs. 43,000/- (Rupees forty-three thousand). The plea of pressurization cannot be decided by Consumer Forums. In para of the complaint, it is alleged that the opposite party does not possess the knowledge of the work for which he claims to be an expert. The Consumer Forums will not decide whether the opposite party possesses the knowledge of the work for which he claims to be an expert. In para 10, it is alleged that the plant fabricated by Sh. Sengupta who was hired by the opposite party had many mistakes. We are not to decide about mistakes of the opposite party by examining the fabrication of the plan and rough sketches, etc. In para 12 of the complaint, it is alleged that due to the fraud played by the opposite party, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 19.98 lacs. The Consumer Forums are not meant to decide about fraud and resultant loss out of that fraud. We are supported by the ruling reported in I (1994) CPJ 16 Haryana, Ashwani Kumar Kukreja v. M/s. Puran Chand Jewellers; III (1992) CPJ 50 (NC), M/s. Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. v. United Commercial Bank; II (1992) CPJ 867 Rajasthan, M/s. Saurabh Synthetic (P) Ltd. v. B.M. Oriental Bank of India; and II (1994) CPJ 6 Rajasthan, Radhey Shyam Sadami v. Rajasthan Tourism Department. The details of fraud can be investigated upon by detailed and thorough inquiry by the Civ