Consumer dispute summary jurisdiction fails where contested facts require oral evidence and detailed document scrutiny.

A consumer complaint involving allegations of concealment, misrepresentation, project viability, financing arrangements, machinery supply and defaults was found unsuitable for summary adjudication. Because resolving the dispute would require detailed oral evidence and scrutiny of extensive documents, the Commission held that such fact-intensive issues fall beyond the limited scope of time-bound consumer proceedings. The complaint was therefore not maintainable in the Commission's summary jurisdiction, and the complainant was relegated to the ordinary remedy by way of suit or other appropriate remedies.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was fit for adjudication by the Commission in summary proceedings, or whether the complainant should be relegated to the ordinary remedy by way of suit.

Analysis: The dispute turned on numerous contested allegations concerning concealment, misrepresentation, project viability, financing arrangements, machinery supply, and alleged defaults by the parties. Resolution of those matters would require detailed oral evidence and scrutiny of extensive documents. Such an inquiry was held to be beyond the appropriate scope of time-bound consumer proceedings, which are intended for simpler disputes and do not contemplate elaborate trial-like adjudication where facts are seriously disputed.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable for determination in the Commission's summary jurisdiction and the complainant was relegated to its ordinary remedy by way of suit or other appropriate remedies.

---