Consumer forum can use forensic examination to settle disputes

A consumer forum has to follow a summary procedure for the adjudication of complaints. But at times, the authenticity and credibility of the evidence is challenged as fabricated. In such a situation, sometimes, a consumer forum refuses to weigh a complaint on the grounds that it involves adjudication of complicated facts. It, instead, asks the parties to approach the regular civil court. This is incorrect.

In such a case, a consumer forum isn't helpless; it can obtain evidence by referring the documents for examination by experts. This significant ruling was given by a National Commission bench of judges K S Chaudhari and Suresh Chandra in revision petition number 2008 of 2012 on February 11, 2012 (The New India Assurance Co Ltd v/s Sree Sree Madan Mohan Rice Mill).

The rice mill claimed a fire had broken out at its office-cum-manufacturing unit. An insurance claim was lodged for the loss. The insurance company didn't settle the claim. Aggrieved, the mill filed a complaint before the West Bengal State Commission, claiming a compensation of Rs 99 lakh.

To support and substantiate its claim, the mill relied on photographs of the fire and the loss it had caused. The insurance company questioned the authenticity of photographs, alleging these had been manipulated and fabricated. It claimed the investigator appointed had approached the Central Forensic Laboratory to examine the photographs, but the laboratory had declined to examine those, unless the police or judicial authorities requested such a move. Therefore, the insurer urged the State Commission to refer the photographs to the laboratory for forensic examination.

The mill opposed this application, claiming the surveyor hadn't raised any doubt about the photographs; neither had the insurance company made such an allegation in its reply filed before the State Commission. The mill contended the application was aimed merely at delaying proceedings. Upholding the mill's contention, the State Commission rejected the insurance company's application.

Subsequently, the insurance company filed a revision petition before the National Commission, challenging the State Commission's refusal to refer the photographs for examination.

The National Commission said the insurance company had alleged the photographs had been tampered and manufactured by super-imposing one photograph over another so that a claim could be made. These photographs were taken by the mill owner, not by an independent person. Even if the surveyor didn't question the genuineness of the photographs, the insurance company's primary defence was its challenge to the photographs' credibility. Under such circumstances, the National Commission said the application filed by the insurance company shouldn't have been rejected.

Further, it said the Consumer Protection Act empowered redressal tribunals to seek the report of an analyst from an appropriate laboratory. If the photographs were referred to the laboratory for forensic examination, it would help in arriving at a correct conclusion, it added.

With this, the National Commission set aside the State Commission's order and directed it to send the disputed photographs to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Since the insurance company had disputed the validity of the photographs, the commission directed it to bear the cost of the examination.

This judgment is significant: Even in cases in which documentary evidence is disputed, a consumer forum has the power to adjudicate the complaint by seeking a report from a competent laboratory. The cost of such an examination wouldn't be a burden on the consumer, as it would have to be borne by the party that challenges the document's validity. If the document is found to be false or fabricated, the consumer would definitely be penalised.

The author is a consumer activist