Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President;
Mr. Damodar Thanvi and Mrs. Saria Khan, Members.
AGARWAL DYEING INDUSTRIES—Complainant
versus
RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.—Opp. Party
Complaint Case No. 9 of 1990—Decided on 9.10.1990
A complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable if the subject matter of the complaint is sub judice in a civil court.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 3 - MAINTAINABILITY OF COMPLAINT - SUB JUDICE - CIVIL SUIT PENDING - COMPLAINT NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and two others, seeking various reliefs, including a direction to pay interest on subsidy, interest on interest on subsidy, penal interest, rebate, and interest on rebate amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint was not maintainable as the subject matter of the complaint was sub judice in a civil suit filed by the complainant in the Court of Munsif, Pali.
Issues: Whether the complaint was maintainable in view of the pending civil suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several decisions of the National Commission, New Delhi, which held that where the subject matter of a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is sub judice in a civil court, the complaint is not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court rejected the complaint on the limited ground that it was sub judice in a civil suit.
S.K.M. Lodha, President ––– Messrs. Agarwal Dyeing Industries, Pali, has filed this complaint under Section 12 read with Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ herein) against Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur and two others on 1,0.1.90. In view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 6,29,487 jointly or severally together with interest @ 18.5 per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation. It may be stated that in Para 12 of the complaint, the complainant alleged that the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 may be asked to pay to the complainant the amount of interest realised on subsidy. The amount so mentioned is Rs. 56,355. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 1,16,232 has been claimed on the ground that the opposite parties have realised interest on interest on the subsidy and penal interest. Rs. 18,000/- have been claimed on account of the rebate which the complainant could not get. An amount of Rs. 14,400 has also been claimed on account of interest on the rebate amount from 8.1.89 to 8.1.90. The other particulars of the amounts are mentioned in Paras 12 and 14 of the complaint. Opposite party No. 1 filed the version of the case on 21.5.90 contesting the complaint. Some preliminary objections were raised about the maintainability of the complaint. The principal objections are :
1. that the complaint is not maintainable in regard to subsidy amount.
2. that the relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties was that of the financier and a loanee and such complaints cannot be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act. Both the parties have filed documents in support of the respective pleadings. In support of the complaint, affidavit of Mr. Ram Prakash Agarwal together with photo-stat copies of the documents were filed.
2. Mr. D.P. Pujari, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 filed affidavit of Mr. N.L. Khunteta. The complaint was fixed for arguments on 13th of August, 1990. It was adjourned on that day and the next date fixed for arguments was 9.10.90. On that date, the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submitted photostat copies of the summons under Order 5 Rule 1 and 5 CPC issued to opposite party No. 3 in Civil Original Suit No. 41 of 1990, Plaint filed by the complainant against opposite party No. 1 and two others. Copy of show-cause notice in Civil Misc. Case No. 31 of 90, and application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and 151 CPC in Civil Misc. Case No, 31 of 90 and affidavit of Ram Prakash Agarwal in support of the application. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1, Mr. D.P. Pujari, argued that as the Civil Suit in respect of the matter has been instituted by the complainant in the Court of Munsif, Pali and as that suit is pending, the complaint should be dismissed.
3. We heard learned Counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 1 on the above question.
4. We have carefully considered the complaint and the reliefs sought by him. In the plaint which the complainant has filed in the Court of Munsif, Pali, the following reliefs have been sought against the defendants including opposite party No. 1 :
Plaint is dated 12.2.90. Thus, the Civil Suit was instituted after the filing of the complaint on 10.1.90. The averments in the plaint are practically identical in regard to certain matters. Some of the reliefs claimed are practically the same. The complainant submitted an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and 151 CPC for issuing a temporary injunction. In that application, the complainant has prayed that a temporary injunction should be issued against the defendants restraining them that until the decision of the suit they should not interfere with his possession and that they should not initiate any proceedings under Sections 30 and 29 of the State Financial Corporation. In a
