Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ORISSA HIGH COURT
Mr. Dipak Misra, J.
SATYANANDA SAHOO—Petitioner
versus
RATIKANTA PANDA—Opposite Party
Civil Revision No. 173 of 1995 — Decided on 23.8.1996

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.S. Panda, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party:Mr. Ashok Mukherji, Advocate.

The jurisdiction of civil courts is not ousted by the finality of consumer forum orders under Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, where the dispute relates to ownership of property and the consumer forum has kept the lis open.

Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - RES JUDICATA - LIMITATION - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - INTERPRETATION OF CAUSE OF ACTION - ORDER 7 RULE 11 C.P.C. - CONSUMER DISPUTE - OWNERSHIP OF GOLD ORNAMENTS - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - FINALITY OF CONSUMER FORUM ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a bank customer, filed a suit against the bank and a rival claimant for the return of gold ornaments kept in a locker. The petitioner had earlier filed a consumer complaint against the bank for deficiency in service, and the District Consumer Forum had directed the bank to return the ornaments to the petitioner. The rival claimant, who was impleaded in the consumer complaint, filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which observed that the direction given by the District Forum would be subject to the declaration of ownership of the gold ornaments by a competent court.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata since the State Consumer Commission had kept the lis open and any finding of that nature was not covered within the ambit and sweep of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also held that the trial judge had erred in not adjudicating the issue relating to cause of action and limitation, and directed the trial judge to reconsider the matter again.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata due to the earlier adjudication by the Consumer Forum? 2. Whether the trial judge erred in not adjudicating the issue relating to cause of action and limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata since the State Consumer Commission had kept the lis open and any finding of that nature was not covered within the ambit and sweep of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The court held that the trial judge had erred in not adjudicating the issue relating to cause of action and limitation, and directed the trial judge to reconsider the matter again.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and directed the trial judge to reconsider the matter again, taking into account the plaint and the plaint alone, and no other material in finding out a clear cause of action and subsistence thereof for the purpose of adjudication in law.

ORDER

Dipak Misra, J. — Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.7.95 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court, Cuttack in Title Suit No. 220 of 1995 whereby the said Trial Judge accepted the suit as maintainable and declined to deal with the point of maintainability as envisaged under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present revision.

2. The opposite party as plaintiff instituted the suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court, Cuttack with a number of prayers which are as follows:

"(a) For a declaration that all the gold ornaments found in the Locker No. 113 on 4.9.91 when the same was broken open belong to plaintiff.

(b) For a direction to defendant No. 1 to deliver the gold ornaments to the plaintiff on payment of locker hire charges from January, 1985 till date of delivery of the ornaments to the plaintiff.

(d) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be found entitled.

(e) Cost of the litigation."

3. With regard to the cause of action, in para 39 of the plaint the plaintiff pleaded thus:

"That the cause of action for the suit arose on 4.9.91 when the Locker No. 113 was broken open, on 5.9.91 when the defendant No. 5 declined to deliver the gold ornaments found in the locker in question to the plaintiff, on 24.1.94 when the ex-parte order was passed in C.D. Case No. 351 of 1993 and on 23.12.94 when the plaintiff received the copy of the ex-parte order from defendant No. 2."

4. Before the suit was taken up for admission, the petitioner entered appearance and questioned the maintainability of the suit as well as prayed for dismissal of the same on the ground of limitation.

5. The petitioner brought certain facts to the notice of the Court below which are worth-mentioning. The petitioner was allotted Locker No. 113 in the Bajrakabati Road Branch, Cuttack of UCO Bank where he had his Savings Bank Account bearing No. 2094. Since 1980 the petitioner had kept his valuable gold ornaments and was operating the locker on payment of rent. The key of the locker having been lost, the petitioner informed and requested the bank in writing on 31.5.86 to replace the lock of the locker at his cost and intimate him the date of replacement, so as to enable him to remain present at the time of breaking open of the locker. In spite of requests the Bank did not intimate him anything and therefore the petitioner was compelled to issue a written reminder on 24.2.92. Later on he came to know that the locker had already been opened and all his gold ornaments had been kept in safe custody of the bank after an inventory.

6. On 26.2.92 the petitioner submitted a written representation to the Bank for return of his ornaments and as the same was not done, the petitioner initiated a proceeding under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 forming the subject-matter of the Consumer Dispute Case No. 351 of 1993 before the District Consumer Forum, Cuttack for return of his ornaments and also payment of damages on account of deficiency in service. Before the Consumer Forum the Bank pleaded that one Shri R.K. Panda (plaintiff in the present suit), the then Manager-in-charge of the Branch, was a rival claimant for the said ornaments for which the bank refused to return the ornaments to the petitioner. The deficiency of service was also disputed. It was admitted that locker No. 113 has been allotted to the petitioner and rent therefor was being collected from the petitioner's SB Account till 1988. Coming to know about the rival claim of Shri B.K. Panda, the petitioner imp leaded him as a party in the aforesaid Consumer Dispute. Ultimately the District Consumer Forum directed the bank to return the ornaments to the petitioner and awarded a damage of Rs. 5000/- towards deficiency in service. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the said R.K. Panda preferred Consu