The main legal point established is that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has the authority to order police investigation and appoint a Commission to decide the matter, as per the J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987, Section 15 and Section 11(5).

N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J.

1. This larger Bench is constituted pursuant to reference made on 13.03.2014 with reference to the orders made in CIMA No. 93/2011 dated 19.09.2011 by a Division Bench of High Court of J&K at Srinagar and the order made in CIMA No. 136/2013 dated 14.03.2013 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court at Jammu, for answering an issue, as to whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission can issue directions to the police to register the case and investigate the matter, and the question with regard to jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to call for the report by appointing a Commission and decide the matter.

2. CIMA No. 93/2011, which was disposed of on 19.09.2011, was filed against the order of the State Commission dated 02.08.2011 wherein the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, while dismissing the complaint of the applicant, having prima facie noticed some fraud played by the complainant, directed the Inspector General of Police Srinagar to register a case and submit the copy of the final investigation report to the State Commission within six months. It was contended that under Section 20 of the J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), the powers of the State Commission are limited and if the complaint was found to be false or frivolous the Commission can only dismiss the complaint with costs and beyond that there was no scope for the Commission to pass any other order.

3. The Division Bench answered the said issue by holding that the jurisdiction of the State Commission can be traced not only under Section 20 of the Act but also under Section 15 of the Act, as Section 15(b) specifically states that, ‘the Commission can call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any Divisional Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such Divisional Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity’.

4. In the light of the said statutory provision, the Division Bench held that only photocopy of the original premium receipt was placed before the State Commission and on the directions of the State Commission the complainant later on produced the original insurance policy which was in his possession. The State Commission, after analyzing the materials before it, reached the conclusion that complainant produced a false and fabricated insurance policy and the Insurance Company having produced the photocopy of very same insurance policy issued in favour of one Ghulam Hassan Malik and not in the name of the complainant i.e. Ghulam Hassan Shiekh, came to the conclusion that a false and fictitious insurance policy was sought to be introduced before the State Commission and thereby a false claim was made. The State Commission, after arriving at such conclusion based on materials and evidence, dismissed the claim petition by awarding cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Further a false claim having been preferred, the State Commission decided to call for necessary investigation by the appropriate machinery, namely, the Inspector General of Police, Crime, J&K, by registering a case for carrying out the necessary investigation and to submit the final investigation report before the State Commission. The Division Bench held that the State Commission is vested with ample powers under Section 15 of the Act to pass orders and the fraud played having been noticed, it was empowered to give directions as it cannot remain a mute spectator and allow the complainant to go scot-free and dismissed the CIMA.

5. The conflicting decision was rendered by the later Division Bench in CIMA No. 136/2009 dated 14.03.2013 where the State Commission at Jammu, after noticing the fact that false records have been produced by the complainant, thought f