State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Thokchom Somendro vs Dr. Laishram Trinity on 19 June, 2017
BEFORE THE MANIPUR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
(STATE COMMISSION)
IMPHAL
MANIPUR
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/10/2017
In
Complaint Case No. CC/1/2017
Shri. Thokchom Somendro Vs. Dr. Laishram Trinity
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.Nandakumar PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. M.Padmeshwor Singh JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. A.Nibedita Devi MEMBER
For the Mr.Ng.Tejkumar Singh, Advocate
Appellant:
For the
Mr.S.Disjeswar, Advocate
Respondent:
Dated : 19 Jun 2017
ORDER
By Justice T. Nandakumar Singh.
1. By this Misc. application filed by the respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1 Dr. Laishram Trinity prays for deferring the further proceeding of the present complaint i.e. Complaint Case No. 1 of 2017 till the W.P. (C) No. 286 of 2017 filed by the present applicant i.e. respondent No. 1 is finally disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Manipur.
2. Heard Mr. A. Sachikumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant i.e. respondent No. 1 Dr. L. Trinity, Mr. Ng. Tejkumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, Mr. Tapan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, Mr. W. Darakeshwar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Ch. Momon Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.
3. Respondent No. 4, Director, RIMS, respondent No. 5 Medical Superintendent, RIMS and respondent No. 6, RIMS are not supporting the prayer of the applicant/respondent No. 1 in the Misc. Case for staying the further proceeding of the present complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No. 1 of 2017 till the disposal of the W.P. (C) No. 286 of 2017 and respondent No. 3 also is not supporting the prayer of the applicant in the present Misc. Case. Only the respondent No. 2 Dr. Nandeibam Yohen is supporting the prayer of the applicant. In other words, the respondent No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are not asking for deferring the further proceeding of the present complaint case till the disposal of the writ petition i.e. W.P (C) No. 286 of 2017. It is pertinent to mention that the only ground for supporting the prayer of the applicant in the present misc. application by the -1- respondent No. 2 Dr. Nandeibam Yohen was that whether the procedure of the committee for submitting the report against the applicant i.e. Dr. L. Trinity and others is correct or not is to be decided by the High Court in W.P (C) No. 286 of 2017. At the very outset, we make it clear that the Commission is not going to blindly rely on the inquiry report of the committee against the applicant Dr. L. Trinity without satisfying the correctness of the procedure of the inquiry committee resulting to submitting their report
4. . The present complaint i.e. Complaint Case No. 1 of 2017 was filed by the complainant against the respondents i.e. (i) Dr. Laishram Trinity, Registrar of Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Lamphelpat, Imphal, Manipur (ii) Dr. Nandeibam Yohen, Senior Resident, Deptt. Of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Department, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Lamphelpat, Imphal, Manipur (iii) Dr. Konsam Jina, Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Lamphelpat, Imphal, Manipur (iv) The Director, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Lamphelpat, Imphal, Manipur (v) The Medical Superintendent, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Lamphelpat, Imphal, Manipur and (vi) Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Lamphelpat, Imphal represented by Director RIMS alleging deficiency of service from the side of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 resulting to the death of the complainant's wife, Smt. Th. Kheroda Devi and prayed for :- award compensation of Rs. 97,20,000/- (Rupees ninety seven lakhs twenty thousand) only for the death of Smt. Th. Kheroda Devi and also awarding damages for mental agony and physical suffering of the complainant assessed at Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) and cost of litigation and also for other reliefs as deems fit and proper.
5. The complainant's wife Smt. Th. Kheroda Devi was admitted into the Ante Natal Ward of RIMS hospital on 04.07.2016 and the complainant's wife expired on 06.07.2016 in the RIMS hospital. By an order of the Medical Superintendent, RIMS dated 06.07.2016 a committee comprising of (i) Prof. K. Lekhachandra Sharma, Deptt. Of Surgery, Chairman (ii) Prof. L. Ranjit Singh, HOD, Deptt. Of Obs. & Gynae, Member (iii) Prof. Ng. Taruni, Deptt. Of Medicine, Member and (iv) Prof. Maniram Singh, Deptt. Of Anaesthesiology, Member was constituted for the terms of reference : (i) to determine the condition of the deceased at the time of admission (ii) to find out the circumstances and facts leading to the condition of the patient in the post partum period (iii) to find out the facts & circumstances leading to the death of Smt. Th. Kheroda and (iv) to find out if there have been any lapse on the part of the healthcare providers. The committee submitted its report on 08.07.2016 which consists of 4 (four) conclusions and the 4 th conclusion was - early intervention in the form of Laparotomy and/or Hysterectomy could have saved the life of the patient which can be verified with the findings of the autopsy report. Thereafter by an order of the Director, RIMS dated 11.07.2016 the applicant Dr. L. Trinity was placed under suspension in contemplation of the inquiry to be conducted against the applicant. On 12.07.2016, the Medical Superintendent, RIMS issued another order dated 12.07.2016 for constituting a committee to inquire the alleged negligence of management of Smt. Th. Kheroda, 34 years W/o Th. Somendro, present complainant who was admitted in Ante-Natal Ward, RIMS Hospital on 04.07.2016 and expired on 06.07.2016 for the terms of reference :-
1. To determine the condition of the deceased at the time of admission.
2. To find out the facts & circumstances leading to the death of Smt. Th.
Kheroda.
-2-3. To find out if there have been any lapses on the part of the healthcare providers, and for rectifications required if any, in future.
6. It is also stated that the applicant was asked to appear before the committee and his statement was also recorded by the committee. It is also stated that the composition of the committee constituted under the said order dated 12.07.2016 was also modified by subsequent orders of the Medical Superintendent, RIMS. The committee submitted a report that some lapses in discharging duty/responsibility were evident on the part of the Dr. N. Yohen, Sr. Resident (present Respondent No. 2 and Dr. L. Trinity, Registrar of O & G department (present respondent No. 1) and Dr. K. Jina, Sr. Resident, department of Anesthesiology (present respondent No. 3). Their problem was underestimation of the seriousness of the patient and timely intervention thereof, lack of proper communication among the doctors including proper handing over of the patient (for Dr. N. Yohen, Dr. L. Trinity and PGs) and non-availability of Dr. K. Jina, Sr. Resident (present respondent No. 3) in the earlier part of anesthetic cover for the EUA in the OT.
7. This Commission by its order dated 27.1.2017 passed in the present complaint case made a very clear observation that "In consideration of the complaint case as well as the above factual backdrop, we are of the considered view that this Commission may require to peruse the proceeding of the said Enquiry Committee as well as the Enquiry Report. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to keep the proceeding of the Enquiry Committee and the Enquiry Report in safe custody. We may call the record of the said enquiry as and when necessary."
Therefore, we have already clearly indicated that until and unless we are satisfied with the correctness of the proceeding of the inquiry and fulfillment of principle of natural justice and fair play in the inquiry proceeding, we are not going to rely on the inquiry report blindly. Now the question is whether this Commission is competent to take its own decision as to whether this Commission shall rely on the inquiry report solely for deciding the present complaint case? Before deciding the core question called for decision in the present misc. application i.e. as to whether the further proceeding of the complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No. 1 of 2017 is to be deferred till the final disposal of the writ petition i.e. W.P (C) No. 286 of 2017 by the Hon'ble High Court of Manipur, we are required to recall the history of enacting the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and resulting to establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Authorities like (i) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (ii) State Consumer Disputes Rederssal Commission and (iii) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Secretary General, United Nations submitted a draft guideline for consumer protection to the Economic and Social Council (UNESCO) in 1983. The General Assembly of the United Nations upon extensive discussions and negotiations among governments on the scope and content thereof adopted certain guidelines for consumer protection in achieving or maintaining adequate protection to consumers and also for facilitating the consumer in achieving the rights of the consumers. The Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society & Ors (2003) 2 SCC 412 had taken notice of the history of legislation leading to enactment of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and clearly held that under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complaint can be entertained notwithstanding concurrent jurisdiction of other forum/court . The paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18 and 19 of the SCC in State of Karnataka's case (supra) reads as follows :
-3-"6. The Secretary General, United Nations submitted a draft guidelines for consumer protection to the Economic and Social Council (UNESCO) in 1983. The General Assembly of the United Nations upon extensive discussions and negotiations among governments on this scope and content thereof adopted the guidelines which inter alia provide for the following:
"Taking into account the interest and needs of consumers in all countries, particularly those in developing countries, recognizing that consumers often face imbalances in economic terms, educational level, and bargaining power, and bearing in mind that consumer should have the right to access to non-hazardous products, as well as the importance of promoting just, equitable and sustainable economic and social development, these guidelines for consumer protection have the following objectives:
(a) To assist countries in achieving or maintaining adequate protection for their population as consumers.
(b) To facilitate production and distribution patterns
responsive to the needs and desires of consumers.
(c) To encourage high levels of ethical conduct for those
engaged in the production and distribution of goods and services to consumers.
(d) To assist countries in curbing abusive business practices by all enterprises at the national and international levels which adversely affect consumers.
(e) To facilitate the development of independent consumer groups.
(f) To further international cooperation in the field of
consumer protection.
(g) To encourage the development of market conditions which provide consumers with greater choice at lower prices."
7. The framework for the Consumer Act was provided by a resolution dated 9-4-1985 of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation. This is known as "Consumer Protection Resolution No. 39/248". India is a signatory of the said Resolution .
8. The said Act was enacted having regard to the aforementioned Resolution.
-4-9. It seeks to provide for better protection of the interest of consumers and for the said purpose, to make provision for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith, as would appear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act.
10. It further seeks inter alia to promote and protect the rights of consumers such as -
"(a) The right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property;
(b) the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;
(c) the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to variety of goods at competitive prices;
(d) the right to be heard and to be assured that consumers' interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums;
(e) the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and
(f) right to consumer education."
17. The provisions of the said Act clearly demonstrate that it was enacted keeping in view the long-felt necessity of protecting the common man from wrongs wherefor the ordinary law for all intent and purport had become illusory. In terms of the said Act, a consumer is entitled to participate in the proceedings directly as a result whereof his helplessness against a powerful business house may be taken care of .
18. This Court in a large number of decisions considered the purport and object of the said Act. By reason of the said statute, quasi-judicial authorities have been created at the district, State and Central levels so as to enable a consumer to ventilate his grievances before a forum where justice can be done without any procedural wrangles and hypertechnicalities .
19. One of the objects of the said Act is to provide momentum to the consumer movement. The Central Consumer Protection Council is also to be constituted in terms of Section 4 of the Act to promote and protect the rights of the consumers as noticed hereinbefore."
8. The Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 held (SCC p.255 para 2) that -5- "2. ................. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, 'a network of rackets' or a society in which, 'producer have secured power' to 'rob the rest' and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked ........"
9. The Apex Court in Charan Singh vs. healing Touch Hospital & Ors (2000) 7 SCC 668 held that the Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. The Act provides for an alternative system of consumer justice by summary trial. The authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is one of the postulates of such a body that it should arrive at a conclusion based on reason . Paras 11 and 12 of the SCC in Charan Singh's case (supra) (SCC p. 673 para 11 and 12) read as follows :
"11. The Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. The Act provides for an alternative system of consumer justice by summary trial. The authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is one of the postulates of such a body that it should arrive at a conclusion based on reason . The necessity to provide reasons, howsoever, brief in support of its conclusion by such a forum, is too obvious to be reiterated and needs no emphasising. Obligation to give reasons not only introduces clarity but it also excludes, or at any rate minimizes, the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. Unfortunately we have not been able to find from the impugned order any reasons in support of the conclusion that the claim of the appellant is "unrealistic" or "exaggerated" or "excessive". Loss of salary is not the sole factor which was required to be taken into consideration.
12. While quantifying damages, Consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the consumer forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge."-6-
10. The Apex Court in Vishwabharathi House Building's case (supra) held (SCC p. 429 paras 46, 47 and 48) that "46. By reason of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, it is evident that remedies provided thereunder are not in derogation of those provided under other laws. The said Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the civil courts or other statutory authorities .
47. The said Act provides for a further safeguard to the effect that in the event a complaint involves complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the complainant would be at liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate relief. The right of the consumer to approach the civil court for necessary relief has, therefore, been provided under the Act itself.
48. The provisions of the said Act are required to be interpreted as broadly as possible. It has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint despite the fact that other forums/courts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis . [See Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi ((1996) 6 SCC 385 and Satpal Mohindra v. Surindra Timber Stores ((1999) 5 SCC 696). ]"
11. The Apex Court in Skypak Couriers Ltd. vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2000) 5 SCC 294 held that the Commissions, under Consumer Protection Act, are quasi-judicial bodies and even the existence of arbitration clause in an agreement is not a bar to the entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency under the Act i.e. Consumer Protection Act since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to other provision of any other Act . Para 2 of the SCC in Skypak Couriers Ltd's case (supra) (SCC p. 295 para 2) reads as under :
"With the industrial revolution and development in the international trade and commerce, there has been a substantial increase of business and trade, which resulted in a variety of consumer goods appearing in the market to cater to the needs of the consumers. The modern methods of advertisement in media, influence the mind of the consumers and notwithstanding the manufacturing defect or imperfection in the quality, a consumer is tempted to purchase the goods. There has been possibility of deficiency in the services rendered. For the welfare of such consumer and to protect the consumers from the exploitation to provide protection of the interest of the consumers, Parliament enacted the Consumer Protection Act, and the Act itself makes provision for the establishment of Commissions for settlement of the consumer disputes and matters connected therewith. The Commission under the Act, are quasi-judicial bodies and they are supposed to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and for that purpose, they have been empowered to give relief of a specified nature and in an appropriate way, to award compensation . On a detailed scrutiny of the different provisions of the Act and bearing in mind the powers conferred on the Commissions, it is indeed difficult to conceive that such Commissions merely because to arrive at a decision, it would be necessary to taken evidence in the proceedings. In the absence of any provisions in the Act itself, receipt of a complaint from a -7- consumer, for being settled through a consensual adjudication, the conclusion is irresistible that the Commission dispute for consensual adjudication and then make the said decision of the so-called consensual arbitrator, an order of the Commission itself. Even if there exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a complaint is made by the consumer, in relation to a certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar to the entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Now let us see what procedure has been adopted by the Commission ."
12. The Apex Court in Virender Jain vs. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors (2013) 9 SCC 383 clearly held that the availability of alternative remedies under any statute is not a bar to the entertaining of a complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act and remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the remedy available under other Acts . Paras 14 and 15 of the SCC in Virender Jain's case (supra) (SCC p. 390 paras 14 and 15) reads as under :
"14. In our view, there is no merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel. In the complaints filed by them, the appellants had primarily challenged the action of Respondent 1 to refund the amounts deposited by them and thereby extinguished their entitlement to get the flats. Therefore, the mere fact that the action taken by Respondent 1 was approved by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and higher authorities, cannot deprive the appellants of their legitimate right to seek remedy under the Act, which is in addition to the other remedies available to them under the Cooperative Societies Act. Law on this issue must be treated as settled by the judgments of this Court in Thirumurugan Coop. Agriculture Credit Society v. M. Lalitha ((2004) 1 SCC 305), Kishore Lal v. ESI Corpn. ((2007) 4 SCC 579) and National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy. ((2012) 2 SCC 506 .
15. In the last mentioned judgment, National Seeds Corpn . case ((2012) 2 SCC 506), this Court referred to the earlier judgments in Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi ((1996) 6 SCC 385), Thirumurugan Coop. Agriculture Credit Society v. M. Lalitha ((2004) 1 SCC 305), Skypat Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. ((2000) 5 SCC 294) and Trans Mediterranean Airways v.
Universal Exports ((2011) 10 SCC 316) and held that the remedy available under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under other statutes and the availability of alternative remedies is not a bar to the entertaining of a complaint filed under the Act ."
13. The Apex Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635 held that the State Commission headed by a retired High Court Judge is competent to decide the complicated issues of law or facts. Para 11 of the SCC in Dr. J.J. Merchant's case (supra) (SCC p. 642 para 11) reads as follow :
-8-"11. Further, under the Act the National Commission is required to be headed by a retired Judge of this Court and the State Commission is required to be headed by a retired High Court Judge. They are competent to decide complicated issues of law or facts . Hence, it would not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of experts is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the civil court."
14. The Apex Court in V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital (2010) 5 SCC 513 held that the Consumer Fora and the Commission headed by the High Court Judges are competent to decide as to whether the expert opinion is required or not and could take the appropriate step to do justice in the given case . Para 56 of the SCC in V. Kishan Rao's case (supra) (SCC p. 532) reads as follows:
" 56. This Court however makes it clear that before the Consumer Fora if any of the parties wants to adduce expert evidence, the members of the Fora by applying their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record can allow the parties to adduce such evidence if it is appropriate to do so in the facts of the case. The discretion in this matter is left to the members of the Fora especially when retired Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts are appointed to head the National Commission and the State Commissions respectively . Therefore, these questions are to be judged on the facts of each case and there cannot be a mechanical or straitjacket approach that each and every case must be referred to experts for evidence."
15. No doubt, the State Commission headed by the retired High Court Judge is not subordinate to the High Court, however, the power of judicial review of the High Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the basic structure of the Constitution. The Apex Court in Cicily Kallarackal vs. Vehicle Factory (2012) 8 SCC 524 clearly held that it will not be proper for the High Court to entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to deal with the matter against the order of the National Commission. When the legislature has provided statutory appeal, High Court cannot bypass statutory appeal. Hence, the direction of caution is issued to all the High Courts not to entertain writ petitions challenging the order of the National Commission . Para 9 and 10 of the SCC in Cicily Kallarackal's case (supra) (SCC p. 526 para 9) reads as follow :
" 9. While declining to interfere in the present special leave petition preferred against the order passed by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we hereby make it clear that the orders of the Commission are incapable of being questioned under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court , as a statutory appeal in terms of Section 27- A (1) (c) lies to this Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation in issuing a direction of caution that it will not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts to entertain writ petition against such orders of the Commission .-9-
10. A copy of this order may be sent to the Registrars General of all the High Courts, for bringing the same to the notice of the Hon'ble the Chief Justices and Hon'ble Judges of the respective High Courts ."
Against any order of this Commission, a statutory remedy is available before the National Commission.
16. It is no longer res integra that the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot dictate the statutory authorities, who are competent to take its own decision, to take decision in a particular manner. However, the High Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can direct the concerned authority to exercise the jurisdiction according to law. In the instance case, this Commission is competent to take its own decision for deciding any point in consideration of the present Misc. case according to law. The Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr vs. Mohd. Ismail & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 239 held (SCC p. 244 para 12) that "12. The High Court was equally in error in directing the Corporation to offer alternative job to drivers who are found to be medically unfit before dispensing with their services. The court cannot dictate the decision of the statutory authority that ought to be made in the exercise of discretion in a given case. The court cannot direct the statutory authority to exercise the discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law . The court could only command the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform its duty by exercising the discretion according to law. Whether alternative job is to be offered or not in a matter left to the discretion of the competent authority of the Corporation and the Corporation has to exercise the discretion in individual cases. The court cannot command the Corporation to exercise discretion in a particular manner and in favour of a particular person. That would be beyond the jurisdiction of the court ."
17. For the foregoing discussions, it is clear that this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint i.e. Complaint Case No. 1 of 2017 and also is competent to take its own decision as to whether or not this Commission will rely on the inquiry report in question in deciding the present complaint case and also further competent to see as to whether or not the proceeding of the inquiry in question is fair or in consonance with the principle of natural justice before taking the report of the Committee as one of the evidences for deciding the question of alleged deficiency of service in the given case. This Commission further guarantees that the procedure contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and principle of Natural Justice will be followed in deciding the present complaint case and also ample opportunities will be provided to the parties to put up their respective case.
18. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that the further proceeding of the complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No. 1 of 2017 is not required to be stayed till the W.P. (C) No. 286 of 2017 is finally decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Manipur. Accordingly, the present Misc. Application is disposed of.
-10-[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.Nandakumar] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. M.Padmeshwor Singh] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. A.Nibedita Devi] MEMBER -11-