V.P.SOMASHEKAR vs SECRETARY, APMC YARD

IN this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of the District Forum. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the appellant among other things, on the ground that the complainant has sought his remedy in a parallel proceeding before the Civil Court.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit in question seeking the same relief has been filed before an appropriate Civil Court after the complaint was filed before the District Forum. In other words, the learned Counsel submits that this complaint was filed before the Forum in the year 1996 and the suit was filed in the year 1997. However, the fact that the cause of action both for this complaint and also for the suit in question is the same. The learned Counsel for The appellant submits that having regard to The fact that Section 3 provides that The relief under The provisions of Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any oTher law for The time being in force, The fact that The matter is pending before The Civil Court is not a bar for continuing The proceedings under The provisions of The Consumer Protection Act.

Dilating on this-aspect, the learned Counsel stated that the doors of the Forum or Commission cannot be shut to the complainant merely on the fact that he had chosen to file a separate suit, may be on the same cause of action, which is pending disposal.

THE learned Counsel also submitted that the decision of the National Commission in Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat v. THE State of Gujarat, I (1994) CPJ 114 (NC)=1986-1995 Consumer 9 (NS), has no application to the facts of this case. THE learned Counsel contended that these facts are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case dealt with by the National Commission alluded to earlier. THE learned Counsel therefore submitted that the order passed by the District Forum deserves to be set at naught and the matter deserves to be decided on the merits of the case. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The submissions made by the learned Counsel will have to be considered from a proper perspective. It is true that the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. At the same time, it is necessary to remember that the proceedings before a Forum or, for that matter, before a Commission are summary in nature and they cannot be equated to proceedings which take place before a regular Civil Court in a full dressed trial. The complainant, after having filed the complaint before the District Forum back in the year 1996, thought in terms of going to the Civil Court on his own for the same relief and under the same cause of action. If that be so, it is clear that the complainant is thinking in terms of getting his case decided in a Civil Court in a regular trial.

THE learned Counsel, at one stage, submitted that he had to rush to the Civil Court because the Office of the President before the District Forum at Kolar was vacant at the relevant point of time. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant has not made it clear as regards as to when the Office of the President of District, Forum, Kolar, was vacant. Further, the complainant has also not chosen to withdraw the suit after the President of District Forum, Kolar, has assumed Office. Even now, the learned Counsel for the appellant does not tell us that the complainant has got any intention to get his suit withdrawn. Under these circumstances, we are indeed of the view that it would not be proper for the complainant to continue the proceedings in a matter, which is seized by a Civil Court. The provisions of Section 3 are not enacted to enable the litigants to take a chance by initiating parallel proceedings, one in the Consumer Forum and another in the Civil Court. The relevant provision of Section 3 will have to be understood in an appropriate way and if understood in an appropriate way in this case, the same cannot countenance a situation like the one in hand. In our view, the ratio of the decision rendered by the National Commission in Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat''s case will apply with all force to the facts of this case also. Under these circumstances, we are not impressed by the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant however submits that the suit which he had filed before the Civil Court may suffer with reference to the provisions relating to limitation. In our view, the apprehension entertained by the learned Counsel for the appellant is not well-founded in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, reported in II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=AIR 1995 SC 1428.

LOOKED at from any point of view therefore, we are indeed of the view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. ________________