NIRMAN KUMAR DAS & ANR. vs TRISHNA RANA & ANR.

The petitioners, vide agreement dated 15.12.2007 agreed to sell a flat having super built up area of 580 sq. ft. in a building at 7E/1H, Surah Cross Lane, P.S. Beliaghata at Kolkata to the complainants for a consideration of Rs.6,10,000/-. The complainants paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to them and the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid at the time of the registration. The possession of the flat was allegedly handed over to the complainants in incomplete condition, but no deed of conveyance was executed in their favour, despite the complainants having remitted the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- along with draft conveyance deed. The petitioners rather cancelled the agreement, vide their letter dated 01.02.2012. Being aggrieved, the complainants filed a complaint before the concerned District Forum on 16.5.2012. In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed a Civil Suit before the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sealdah.

The District Forum vide its order dated 24.9.2013 directed the petitioners to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants after accepting the balance consideration of Rs.10,000/- from them. The complainants were also awarded compensation quantified at Rs.40,000/-. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded to them as punitive charges.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 29.4.2015, the State Commission directed the petitioners only to execute and register the conveyance deed in favour of the complainants on receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- from them. Rest of the directions given by the District Forum were set aside. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioners are before us by way of this Revision Petition.

The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the issues involved in the Civil Suit and the complaint was identical, the District Forum could not have allowed the complaint during pendency of the said Suit.

The question as to whether the pendency of a civil suit comes in the way of the filing or continuance of a complaint before a Consumer Forum came for consideration of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Amardeep Singh Wirk & Ors. In the aforesaid case, respondent No.1 purchased a vehicle manufactured by the appellant Hindustan Motors Ltd. The said vehicle met with an accident in which the brother of respondent No.1, who was driving the vehicle, died. Alleging manufacturing defects in the vehicle, respondent No.1 claimed compensation from the appellant. The wife of the deceased filed a Civil Suit for damages, alleging negligence on the part of the appellant. It was contended by the appellant that since the issues involved were common in the civil suit as well as in the complaint, continuation of both the proceedings would have a deritorious effect and could result in conflicting orders. The Hon''ble Single Judge took the view that the right created under the Consumer Protection Act could not be curtailed on the ground of pendency of other proceedings and existence of parallel or other Adjudicatory Forums could not take away or exclude the jurisdiction created under the Consumer Protection Act. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge, the appellant company filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. Referring to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Satpal Mohindra Vs. Surindera Timber Stores, (1999) 5 SCC 696,the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding inter-alia as under: "16. In the light of the judgments discussed hereinabove, there is no room for any doubt that proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act and a Civil Court can simultaneously go on, even if the issues involved in the two proceedings are substantially similar. The remedies are independent of each other. The existence of parallel or other adjudicatory Forums cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction created under the Consumer Protection Act".

In view of the above referred decision of the Hon''ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, we cannot accept the contention that the District Forum, instead of deciding the complaint on merit, should have awaited the decision of the civil suit instituted by the petitioners. The revision petition is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.