Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. In that case, the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala, alleging deficiency of service by use of sub-standard material by the respondent, with whom an order had been placed by him for fabricating of doors and windows. The appellant sought suitable compensation from the respondent. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed and the appellant took the matter in appeal to the State Consumer Forum. However, the State Consumer Forum, without going into the merits of the appeal, non-suited the appellant on the ground that the matter was subjudice before a Civil Court. As per the State Consumer Forum, the appellant would have an opportunity to file a counter-claim there and that as the matter would be decided on merits by the Civil Court, there was no scope for any further action in the Consumer jurisdiction. The revision petition of the appellant before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was also dismissed holding that the appellant could raise all the points before the Civil Court in the pending suit. It was in this background that the appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition, wherein the above observations and findings were given by the Supreme Court.

8. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha & Ors. (supra) case, the respondents being members of the appellant-society, had pledged paddy bags for obtaining loan. The appellant-society had issued notices to the respondents demanding payment of loan amount with interest thereon. The respondents filed petitions in the District Consumer Forum, seeking direction to the appellant to release the paddy bags pledged on receipt of the loan amount or in the alternative to direct the appellant to pay the market values of the paddy bags with interest thereon. The appellant contested the claims of the respondents before the District Forum raising a preliminary objection that Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the members and cooperative society in view of Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. One of the issues framed by the District Forum was whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaints of this nature? The District Forum decided in favour of the respondents. The appellant took the matter in appeal to the State Consumer Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents. The State Commission held that the complaints filed by the respondents were themselves not maintainable having regard to Section 90 of the Act. The respondents approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by way of a revision petition. The National Commission allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the State Commission. It would be material to reproduce relevant provisions of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, hereinbelow:-

12. The Supreme Court was of the view that the Court while exercising its judicial function would ordinarily not pass an order which would make one of the parties to the lis violate a lawful order passed by another court. The Supreme Court, accordingly, declined to entertain the application for appointment of an Arbitrator at this stage. This decision of the Supreme Court in India Household & Healthcare Ltd. vs. LG Household & Healthcare Ltd. (supra) case has no application to the facts of the present case. Nowhere was the issue of ouster of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum while a matter involving similar issue is pending in the Civil Court, considered. Moreover, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the application under Section 11 of the Act as the very existence of an arbitration agreement was under challenge in a separate proceedings where allegations of fraud had been made and interim orders passed by the High Court. The said judgment is, thus, of no assistance to the appellant. The appellants also placed reliance on the decision of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Dinesh Premji Shah vs. S.N. Pathak, II (2006) CPJ 200 (NC). All that was observed in the said case was that Consumer Forum cannot go against the order passed by the Civil Court and that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides only an additional remedy but does not confer jurisdiction on a Consumer Forum to act as an Appellate body or exercise powers which do not emanate from the Act constituting it. This proposition is well settled. However, it in no way advances the case of the appellant. Nor does it suggest that the proceedings in the Consumer Forum must be stayed merely because the issues are substantially similar in proceedings pending in a Civil Court.

16. In the light of the judgments discussed hereinabove, there is no room for any doubt that proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act and in 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. It is also pertinent to mention that in the present case, the proceedings in the Civil Court and those in the Consumer Forum have been initiated by two different parties though, admittedly, their grievances relate to the same incident as also the fact that the two parties are related. However, the fact remains that they are two independent parties who have initiated independent and separate proceedings before this High Court and the Consumer Forum.