Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.66 seconds)Pankaj Sharma vs The Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank & Ors. on 19 December, 2025
He further relied on the judgment of
Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of 'M/s Hindustan Motor Ltd. Vs.
Amardeep Singh Wirk & Ors., reported in III(2009) CPJ 417, wherein it
has been observed that "civil suit can simultaneously go on with a
consumer complaint, even if the issues involved in the two proceedings
are substantially similar. The remedies are independent of each other in
8
FA No.27 of 2022
both proceedings. 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.
Moreover, as per provisions of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, the
provisions of said Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other
provision of any other law for the time being enforced." The appellant
further referred a few more decisions for the same proposition and
prayed that matter be heard on merits for its disposal. However, we are
not inclined to accept the above said version of the
appellant/complainant as none of those cited authorities deal with a
similar set of facts, where civil case was filed at the first instance for the
same relief. In the present case, when the alternative/additional remedy
of approaching the Consumer Commission at the first instance was very
much available, the appellant/complainant chose to seek relief under the
general law by filing the civil suit and, during the pendency of the same,
he filed the consumer complaint for the identical relief/cause of action.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble National
Commission in the case of "Ajay Nagpal Vs. M/s Today Homes &
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd." decided on 15.04.2019 in CC 1764 of 2017,
wherein it has been held as under:-
Extramarks Education India Private ... vs Vks Academy on 25 July, 2022
"22. On the same aspect, the decision of a Division Bench of
this Court in Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs. Amardeep Singh Wirk
& Ors., 161 (2009) DLT 88 (DB) is also relied upon.
Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the said judgment are apposite,
which read as under:-
Arun Khanna vs Smt. Shashi Sharma & Ors. on 4 September, 2012
9. All these
arguments have left no impression upon
us. The authority reported in Hindustan
Motors Ltd. Vs. Amardeep Singh Wirk & Ors, 161 (2009) Delhi LT 88 (DB), is based on several authorities of the Supreme
Court of India. Para No.1 of the said
judgment is reproduced below:
Smt. Mithu Basu vs Smt. Arati Tiwari on 23 September, 2019
The question as to whether the pendency of a civil suit comes in the way of filing or continuance of a complaint before a Consumer Forum came for consideration of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Hindusthan Motors Ltd. - Vs. - Amardeep Singh Wirk & Ors. reported in III (2009) CPJ 417. In the aforesaid case, Respondent no.1 purchased a vehicle manufactured by the Appellant Hindusthan 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 deleterious effect and could result in conflicting orders. The Hon'ble Single Judge took the view that the right created under the Act could not be curtailed on the ground of pendency of other proceedings and existence of parallel or other adjudicatory Forums could 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.
Safmarine Container Lines N.V. vs M/S Amita Enterprises & Anr on 20 December, 2012
In the instant case, the Plaintiff has not been able to show any
statutory bar on the Consumer Forum proceedings initiated by the
CS (OS) No.2014/2010 Page 24 of 25
Defendant No.1 and thus the ratio of the decision rendered by this
Court in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. (supra) squarely applies
to the facts of the present case.
M/S Duni Chand Harbans Lal vs Janta Tent House on 19 November, 2009
16. Hon'ble Delhi High Court has gone still ahead and gave wider
interpretation to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act in the judgment reported as
"HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD. v. AMARDEEP SINGH WIRK & ORS."
Vijay Sukhija, Member vs Swami Geeta Giri @ Indu Arora on 20 October, 2009
42. Hon'ble Delhi High Court has gone still ahead and gave wider
interpretation to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act in the judgment reported as
"HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD. v. AMARDEEP SINGH WIRK & ORS."
Smt. Mithu Basu vs Smt. Pramila Pandey on 23 September, 2019
The question as to whether the pendency of a civil suit comes in the way of filing or continuance of a complaint before a Consumer Forum came for consideration of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Hindusthan Motors Ltd. - Vs. - Amardeep Singh Wirk & Ors. reported in III (2009) CPJ 417. In the aforesaid case, Respondent no.1 purchased a vehicle manufactured by the Appellant Hindusthan 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 deleterious effect and could result in conflicting orders. The Hon'ble Single Judge took the view that the right created under the Act could not be curtailed on the ground of pendency of other proceedings and existence of parallel or other adjudicatory Forums could 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.
Sri Debiprasad Chatterjee vs Smt. Chaitali Das on 5 March, 2020
The question as to whether the pendency of a civil suit comes in the way of filing or continuance of a complaint before a Consumer Forum came for consideration of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Hindusthan Motors Ltd. - Vs. - Amardeep Singh Wirk & Ors. reported in III (2009) CPJ 417. In the aforesaid case, Respondent no.1 purchased a vehicle manufactured by the Appellant Hindusthan 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 deleterious effect and could result in conflicting orders. The Hon'ble Single Judge took the view that the right created under the Act could not be curtailed on the ground of pendency of other proceedings and existence of parallel or other adjudicatory Forums could 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.