The Consumer Protection Act has jurisdiction to decide cases in addition to the jurisdiction exercised by the Civil Court.

Mr. Vinod Shankar Chaubey, Member—Sri Neel Mani Mishra, appellant has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against the judgment and order dated 31.3.198 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bahraich in Complaint Case No. 12/1996. He has raised the plea in this appeal that the matter relates to the breach of trust and this is a case of civil nature and District Forum was not competent to decide this case.

2. Mr. H.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.H. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant have been heard at length and we have perused the evidence on record.

3. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complaint was beyond limitation. He further argued that the basis of this complaint was a ‘receipt’ on the letterhead of Pavan Brick Field, Bhinga Road, Hasnapur (Bahraich) which mentions that Rs. 40,000/- has been paid in advance for 1,00,000 first class bricks at the rate of Rs. 400/- per thousand by Sri Awadesh Narayan and the bricks will be delivered to Sri Awadesh Narayan in the month of January. The main argument of Sri Srivastava was that this receipt has not been signed by Sri Neel Mani Mishra but the finding of the Forum in its judgment has been made in the following words:

“Hindi matter omitted.”

4. There is nothing reliable on record to differ from this finding and we are of opinion that there is no need to verify the signature of Shri Misra by an expert.

5. So far as second argument of Sri Srivastava is concerned about the jurisdiction of the Forum, this is the settled law that the Act has got jurisdiction to decide the cases in addition to the jurisdiction exercised by the Civil Court, hence the jurisdiction of the Forum is there to decide the case. It can be said that the complainant may go to Civil Court for the compensation of damages but because Section 3 of Copra provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, the heirarchy of authorities under the Consumer Protection Act are competent to decide this case.

6. So far as the liability of amount to be paid to the complainant/respondent is concerned, Rs. 40,000/- has been paid by Sri Awadesh Narayan and it has also come on the record that the brick field of the appellant is closed down, hence the return of the money is the only course but the Forum has ordered the return of the amount with 15% annual interest which is not justified due to the reason mentioned above.

7. In the circumstances of this case, it appears that Rs. 40,000/- were paid as evidence to the brick field owner and supply has not been made. The end of justice will be met if Rs. 40,000/- are returned to Sri Awadesh Narayan, appellant in two equal instalments of Rs. 20,000/- each by two bi-monthly instalments in a period of four months. The interest imposed is set aside.

8. The appeal succeeds in part and is disposed of with the above directions.

9.

Appeal partly allowed.

–