Punjab and Sind Bank vs SHAKTI SALES CORPORATION

MR. Justice H.S. Brar, President-It is a Revision Petition against the order dated 6.5.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Faridkot (hereinafter called the District Forum).

RESPONDENT No. 1-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum requiring the petitioner and respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2, (hereinafter called the opposite parties) to pay a sum of Rs. 4,75,000/- along with interest. After the service of the opposite parties was secured both the parties led evidence and when the case was fixed for evidence of the opposite parties an application was moved by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties stating therein that the complaint was not maintainable because civil suit for recovery was pending in the Civil Court and the relief claimed before the District Forum could be agitated by the complainant before the Civil Court. In reply filed by the complainant through his Counsel, it was stated that the complaint before the District Forum was instituted much before the filing of the civil sult by the opposite parties and that the relief claimed by the complainant before the District Forum was different than the relief claimed by the opposite parties before the Civil Court and, therefore, there was no reason to dismiss the complaint.

After hearing the Counsels for the parties and after going through the record of the case the District Forum dismissed the application. Hence, this Revision Petition.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order of the District Forum. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the District Forum is reproduced hereunder : "3. In the complaint, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 4,75,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- as costs because the opposite parties had forgotten to renew the insurance of the stocks of the electrical goods lying in the shop of the complainant as agreed to between the parties. It is true that in the written statement a plea was taken by the opposite party No. 1 as far back as on 6.2.2002 that this dispute can only be decided by the Civil Court. We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties. The opposite party No.1 might have filed a suit against the complainant for the recovery of the amount but in the present case the complainant has alleged that there was a dificiency in service on the part of opposite parties by not renewing the policy for insuring the goods on behalf of the complainant as a result of which the insurance company is not making payment of the amount on the ground that the artcles in the shop of the complainant were not insured. This question can only be determined by the Forum and, therefore, we agree with the Counsel for the complainant that the proceedings of this complaint cannot be stayed or the complaint be dismissed or the complainant be asked to file a civil suit and hence in view of the above discussion application is dismissed. As a number of dates have already been taken for evidence, hence last opportunity is given to the opposite parties to produce complete evidence on 23.5.2003."

We do not find any fault with the order of the District Forum. It was not such a complaint, which could be dismissed at the threshold. In the complaint before the District Forum, the complainant had alleged that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by not reviewing the policy for insuring the goods on behalf of the complainant as a result the Insurance Company was not making payment of the amount on the ground that the articles in the shop of the complainant were not insured. It has rightly been held by the District Forum that this question could only be determined by the District Forum. In any case, as we have stated above, it was not such a complaint, which could be dismissed at the threshold. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.