Consumer Fora's jurisdiction extends despite allegations of fraud or forgery, as remedies under Consumer Protection Act are additional to other legal avenues.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants under S.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 impugning the order dated 6.6.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - VI, ITO, New Delhi in Complaint No. 330 of 2005 filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellants and respondent No. 2.

2. The District Forum vide the impugned order dated 6.6.2013 allowed the relief as prayed by the respondent No. 1 and directed the appellants to pay the value of shares i.e. Rs.1,15,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 28.12.2004 till payment, a sum of Rs.50,000 as compensation for the deficiency & harassment and Rs.25,000 fro litigation expenses.

3. The District Forum, in its judgment dated 6.6.2013 has held as under:
"In our view, the fact that complainant is having the original instructions with him is most crucial & clinching to the controversy. It is obvious that once the original are with the complainant, it follows that something has happened at the end of OP - 1, leading to transfer of shares. Its employees etc. have obviously printed two sets of instruction book, which has been used for transaction in the name of complainant. The police has to direct investigator within Bank, and OP may cooperate to get the offender caught and punished. But OP - 1 cannot absolve itself of its liability to pay back the value of shares i.e. Rs.1,15,000. We also direct OP bank to pay interest on this sum @ 9% from 28.11.2004 till payment, as he has been deprived of business on the value of share.
We also award compensation of Rs.50,000 for the deficiency, harassment and Rs.25,000 for litigation expenses."

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants have submitted that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as it involves complicated question of facts and law i.e. fraud, cheating & recovery. It is further submitted by the appellant that FIR No. 55/2005 dated 3.2.2005 under S.420, S.468, S.471 of IPC relating to the present dispute is pending investigation with the PS, Connaught Place and therefore, the district forum did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants have also submitted that the allegation of forgery and misappropriation of funds does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums. It is submitted by the appellants that the transaction / transfer of shares was effected only on the instruction of the respondent No. 1 vide two original transaction slips and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part.

6. During the course of proceedings, the right of the respondent No. 2 to file reply was closed vide order dated 2.2.2017 as respondent No. 2 failed to file his reply despite multiple opportunities. Respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 2.9.2019 as respondent No. 1 failed to appear despite service through publication in newspaper Statesman on 27.4.2019.

7. We have perused the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment.

8. It was submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that since the allegations of forgery and misappropriation of funds were leveled by the respondent No. 1, the same cannot not be decided by the Consumer Fora, in summary proceedings. He further submitted that since the detailed evidence was required for proving the factum of forgery, only the Civil Court, had Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The question arises, as to whether, mere allegations, leveled in the complaint, could be said to be sufficient, to oust the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. To resolve this