IMPORTANT POINT
Appellant is not eligible for additional relief alleging non-allotment of plot under the C.P. Act after getting a decree in his favour from the civil Court.

Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member — This is a classic case wherein the complainant had filed a civil case against the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and got a decree in his favour and instead of executing the same he has filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab which held that ‘delay in compliance of decree passed by the Civil Court cannot be a consumer dispute that any relief can be granted to the complainant in this case. After decree of the Civil Suit finally, if there was some delay in getting it executed, it will not be a case of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite party. After adjudication of the dispute by the Civil Court, it no longer remains a consumer dispute to be considered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint has to be dismissed leaving the complainant to approach the Civil Court for the relief, if so advised. The question is answered accordingly.

For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the complaint, the same is dismissed leaving the complainant to approach the Civil Court, if so advised for the relief.’

2. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission he has filed this appeal before us.

3. Facts of the case in brief are, the appellant Shri Jaswant Rai Thaper had purchased a site measuring 664 sq yards for construction of his house at Ludhiana on 23.02.1968. This site was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana on 08.07.1975. The appellant applied for allotment of plot in the developed area under the category of Local Displaced Persons on 04.12.1980. Though the trust carved out 25 residential plots for allotment to the displaced persons, the complainant was not given any one of them, accordingly he filed a civil suit. The suit was decreed on 09.06.1990. Finally, in appeal the improvement Trust was directed to allot a plot of 500 sq yards to the appellant and the Improvement Trust allotted him a plot in 1993. The revision petition filed against the order was dismissed by the High Court in November 1998.

4. Dissatisfied by the order of the Civil Court the appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging non-allotment of plot under the aforesaid scheme is deficiency in service and

accordingly, claimed damages towards cost of construction and escalation charges to the tune of Rs. 19,50,200/-.

5. The issue before us is whether the appellant is eligible for additional relief under the Consumer Protection Act after getting a decree in his favour from the Civil Court.

6. The Ld Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments of the National Commission/Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that pendency of a civil suit does not act as a bar to the complainant to agitate before the Consumer Fora.

1. Mike’s (P) Limited v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur.1

2. Jai Dev Agarwal v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Anr.2

3. Sat Pal Mohindra v. Surindra Timber Stores.3

7. In all the above cases it is held that pendency of the dispute before the Civil Court is not a bar for raising a dispute before the Consumer Fora. But the ratio of the above cases is different from the case under consideration. In this case, there is no civil dispute pending in any Civil Court. In this case the Civil Court has heard this case wherein full evidence was recorded and passed a decree in his favour and the decree was confirmed by the High Court wherein the appeal filed by the respondent before us i.e. Improvement Trust, was dismissed. The only issue pending is the execution of the decree. Hence we do not feel that in such cases, provision under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act can be invoked. Nothing prevented the appellant to claim the same relief before the Civil Court which he claimed before the State Commission. Hence, we do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

*******