State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Emery Electronics vs The Chairman & Managing Director, Idbi ... on 3 March, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.156 of 2013
Date of Institution : 20.12.2013
Date of Decision : 03.03.2017
M/s Emery Electronics, Street No.5, Friends Colony, Jassian Road,
Near Jalandhar Bye-Pass, Ludhiana, through its Sole Proprietor Shri
Amit Chadha.
....Appellant
Versus
1. The Chairman & Managing Director, IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI
Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005.
2. The General Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Tower, WTC
Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 005.
3. The Dy.General Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd., Regional Office at
Videocon Tower, 1st Floor, E-1, Jhandewalan Extension, New
Delhi-110055.
4. IDBI Bank Ltd., Branch Office at B-15/295, G.T. Road, Miller
Ganj, Ludhiana - 141 003 through Shri Neeraj Bhatt, Asstt.
General Manager.
5. General Manager/ Regional Head (Shri Rajinder Kumar), IDBI
Bank Ltd., Videocon Tower, 1st Floor, E-1, Jhandewalan
Extension, New Delhi-110055.
6. The General Manager (Recovery), IDBI Bank Ltd., Videocon
Tower, 1st Floor, E-1, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-
110055.
7. Amit Baliyan, Assistant Manager, M/s IDBI Bank Ltd., B-15/295,
G.T. Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana-141003.
8. M/s United India Insurance Company, Ludhiana Branch at
Ludhiana.
.....Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh.Ishwar Garg, Advocate for Sh.S.D.Bansal, Advocate For opposite parties1-7: Sh.R.S.Joshi, Advocate For opposite party No.8: Sh.Parminder Singh, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant complaint has been filed against the opposite parties for recovery of Rs.65,00,000/- along with future interest at the rate of 13.50% per annum with quarterly rests w.e.f. 07.10.2012, since the fire occurred on 06.10.2012 in the godown of the complainant/firm.
2. The opposite parties No.1 to 7 have filed an application vide which it has been submitted that the complainant had earlier filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana in the year 2013 titled as "Amit Chadha Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd" where a decree for the mandatory injunction directing the defendants to submit and lodge the claim in the present complaint. The mandatory suit relief is virtually the same and the direction has been sought that the bank should lodge the claim with the insurance company and the said amount should be deposited. The suit arises from the loss suffered on account fire occurred at the premises of the complainant. It is well settled principle of law that when a person has already availed a remedy of the Civil Suit or Arbitration then he cannot avail any other remedy by filing the complaint in the Consumer Forum. The civil suit was filed on 30.11.2012 and the consumer complaint has been filed on 16.12.2013. It has not been disclosed in the complaint with regard to the pendency of the civil suit. It appears that complainant had concealed the material facts. The detail of the relevant judgments are as under:-
(i) I (2016) CPJ 235 (NC) (Damayanti Kantilal Shah Kantilal Ghelabhai Shah Vs. Rashmi Grihnirman Ltd. & Ors.) It has been held in para No.4 of the the aforesaid judgment that "the consumer complaint filed by the petitioners/complainants before the District Forum are not maintainable, when civil suit for the same relief has already been filed before the Civil Court, prior to filing of the consumer complaint"
(ii) I (2016) CPJ 331 (NC) (Nirmal Kumar Das & Anr. Vs. Trishna Rana & Anr.) It has been held in Para 5 of the aforesaid judgment that "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. V. Amardeep Singh Wirk & Ors., III (2009) CPJ 417 (DB) = 161 (2009) DLT 99 (DB).
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 v. Surindera Timber Stores, IX (1999) SLT 449=(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."
(iii) IV (2006) CPJ 393 (Danish Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Vs. Anurag Seth) It has been held in Para 3 of the aforesaid judgment that "In the instant case also, the cause of action is the same both for the civil suit and the present complaint. The complaint filed by respondent, was, therefore, not maintainable and the order passed by the District Forum is wholly unsustainable in law."
In view of the above discussion, the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant had filed the civil suit prior to filing of this complaint.
Dismissed as not maintainable.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER March 03, 2017 pka