When a complaint under
consumer protection act cannot be entertained
1.
Maintainability of consumer complaint when consumer has already settled the matter
Gursharan Singh vs 1. Aegon Religare Life Insurance ... on 21 May,
2014
The complainants, after receiving the amount, on 15.01.2013, filed
the Consumer Complaint on 03.04.2013. the complainants kept silent, and slept
over the matter, for a period of about three months, after acceptance of the
amount of the Policies. This clearly goes to prove that the complainants,
voluntarily, accepted the refund of amount aforesaid, without claiming any
interest and compensation. Since the complainants accepted the refund of amount
of the Policies, without any protest or demur, the relationship of consumers
and service providers between the parties, ceased to exist.
Examples-policy could not be made but insurance settled
·
for want of medical checkup,
·
loss of cheque,
·
non compliance of rule by both the parties etc
·
sub standard claim
Indu Bala Satija Vs.Haryana Urban Development Authority, III (2013) CPJ 475 (NC).
Other caeses ;
{Left interest or compensation ;Settled even causing loss, settled
with offer even legally was not entilteld and now cannot make claim )
2. Maintainability of consumer complaint when
case already pending in civil court on the same issue
Damayanti Kantilal Shah,
Kantilal Ghelabhai Shah AND Rashmi Grihnirman Ltd. & Ors. A
Revision Petition Nos. 696 And 697 of 2008
Brief facts of the case are that complainants booked flat
Nos. 219 and 224 measuring about 850 sq. ft. of built up area in District
Thane with Rashmi Grihnirman Ltd. Builder executed Agreement of Sale on
24.4.1999. Possession of the flat was to be given on 11.8.2001.
Builder failed to hand over possession and returned the amount. Alleging
deficiency on the part of Builder, complainants filed complaint
before District Forum with a prayer to direct opposite parties to hand over
possession of flats and further pay interest and compensation. Builders
resisted complaint and submitted that District Forum had no territorial
jurisdiction because complainants had already filed Civil Suit Nos.
368/2002 and 369/2002 on 24.5.2002 for possession. Learned District
Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaints and directed opposite
parties to hand over possession of respective flats and further allowed
interest, compensation and cost.
Builders filed appeals before the state commission of Maharashtra
and State Commission set aside the order of consumer forum.
Hence Revision before the National commission was heard by two
Members bench
Justice V. B. Gupta agreed with the findings of State Commission by giving the
following reasonings for his opinion-
1. “We reiterate that when two
three authorities are available to any person to file judicial proceeding
for the redressal of his grievance, propriety demands that he has to
choose one and pursue the remedy to the hilt or to the logical end, but he
cannot be permitted to file civil suit in the Civil Court and for the same
relief file consumer complaint in the District Consumer Forum. This is nothing
but a blatant misuse of provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and
the Code of Civil Procedure’’
2. ‘The Consumer Forum is in
addition to the jurisdiction of other authorities particularly, Civil
Court functioning in the State of Maharashtra or for that matter all
over India. But once party chooses to approach Civil Court for the same
relief, he cannot be permitted to file consumer complaint pending the civil
suit; he has already filed for the same reliefs. Complainants
Mr. Kantilal Shah and Mrs. Damyanti K. Shah having already
approached Civil Court in the year 2002 were not permitted in law to
file consumer complaints in the year 2003 for the same reliefs,
which they had claimed by filing civil suits in the Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Thane.”
3. Perusal of the
complaints reveals that complainants have not disclosed in their complaint that
civil suit for the same relief had already been filed before Civil Court. The
prayer made by the complainant in the civil suit and before the Consumer Forum
were identical. It is clearly borne out from record that the
complainants/petitioners filed civil suits before a Civil
Court on 24.5.2002 apprehending that the OPs were
contemplating selling the flats in question to a third party. The Civil
Court granted an ad interim injection in favour of the petitioners/complainants vide their
order dated 24.5.2002 itself which made consumers not entitled to opt for any
other remedy available in law. District Forum allowed complaints in
September, 2003 and after institution of appeals by opposite party,
complainant withdrew civil suits on 29.3.2004 which was filed before
institution of complaint before District Forum.Complainants have not come
with clean hands before District Forum.
4. REFERENCE TO THE DECIDED
CASES ON THE ISSUE-
!)The National
Commission in M/s. Special Machines, Karnal v. Punjab
National Bank & Ors., as reported in I (1991) CPJ 78, held that ‘when
the subject matter of a complaint was sub-judice before a Civil Court, the
Commission could not interfere.’
!!)A similar view has been
taken in ‘Lilly Chaoyin v. CMD, Tamilnadu Industrial
Investment Corporation &
Ors. by the Tamilnadu State Commission, as reported in II
(1995) CPJ 209.
In view of the above discussions ,it stands clear that no one can
opt for two remedies for the same cause and cannot be benefitted twice for the
same loss.
3. Second complaint after first complaint is
dismissed on merit for the same cause
When matter has been heard ,and
decided and dismissed on merit . For the same cause one cannot file case before
sam or another authority by hiding the
fact of the decision. But if the case dismissed in default without going into
the merit –one can file or after withdrawing the case with a liberty to file
the same again by improving narration or relief etc
Held on the first issue by
Justice S S Ahmad , D Wadhwa
“ in the absence of the complainant , the court or judicial body
will be well within the jurisdiction to dismisss the complaint for non
–prosecution .So also ,it would have the inherent power and jurisdiction to
restore the complaint on good cause being shown for non-appearance of the
complainant ” meaning thereby that court or judiciary body can dismiss the
complaint in default and also restore it back if non-appearance is justified
Become a Member of the new revolution "Consumer Awakening" and instantly expand your knowledge with the Important Landmark Judgements, Laws Laid down by the Supreme Court for Consumer Rights, Get access to hundreds of Featured Articles in 2 different Languages; English and Hindi - a valuable professional resource to draw upon, and a powerful, collective voice to advocate for your protection of rights as a consumer nationwide.
Thank you for your interest in becoming a "Consumer Awakening" Member!
You will find information on Customer Rights, what we're doing and how to become a member. If you are looking forward to become a member of our portal and gain access to Hundreds of Featured Articles which will clearly give you an insight of yoru rights as a Consumer, then Read Further. more detail on our technologies and technology process,