K. Selvaraj vs Sheik Ibrahim

S.R. Singharavelu, J.—Heard both sides.

The revision petitioner/plaintiff has preferred this revision against the ex parte award passed on 29,12.1994 by the District Consumer Dispute

Redressal Forum, Erode, Since he has exhausted all the remedies in the said forum to set aside the ex parte award, he could not get the relief.

Therefore, he has filed a plaint dated 8.4.2002 praying for declaration that the ex parte award passed in the District Consumer Dispute Redressal

Forum, Erode is void, illegal, obtained by fraud and against law and on facts etc. The Court below has rejected the plaint.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on Dhulabhai and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, principles

regarding the exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court were laid, among which we are concerned with the principle (2), which reads as follows:-

Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the Court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the

sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Where there is no express

exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the

inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special determination of the right or liability and further lays

down that all questions about the said right and liability may be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally

associated with actions in Civil Courts and prescribed by the said statute or not.

Reliance was also placed on Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lrs. and Another Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwala and Others, , wherein also it

has been held that the provision seeking bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court requires strict interpretation and that court would lean in favour of

retaining jurisdiction of Civil Court. It was further held that burden of proof regarding ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court lies on one who claims

such ouster.

Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, , wherein it was held under Sections

24, 13(3) and 18 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that the orders of forums/commissions created under the Act, even if wrong, not open to

question in Civil Court. It was further held that the orders of the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission are final as declared

in Section 24 and cannot be questioned in a Civil Court, that even if the forum/commission decides the said questions wrongly, their orders may

following the procedure prescribed in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 cannot be questioned in a Civil Court.

Therefore, by following the principles laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, , it can be said that the act of

preferring a plaint by the revision petitioner challenging the decision of the consumer forum cannot be entertained and this is also not in derogation

of principles laid down, in the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, where also it was only said that ouster should be

proved by the person who claims so. Now the respondent, who had canvassed about the finality of the proceedings of the Consumer Forum had

relied upon the case law cited in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, , wherein the principle was well established that even

again orders wrongly passed by the Consumer Forum, no Civil Court can entertain the suit. I do not find any error in the order of the trial Court.

Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, no order is necessary in C.M.P. No. 14512 of 2002 and the same is closed.