IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint before Consumer Forum is not a suit.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The principal question in this case, which pivots round the controversy is, “Whether the pendency of a civil suit is a bar to the filing of a complaint, under Section 12/15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?”

2. The parties entered into an Agreement wherein it was agreed that petitioner/Builder would construct first and second floors and renovate the ground floor of the premises, bearing No. 5/3, Punjabi Bagh Extn, New Delhi, belonging to the complainants who are five in number and are siblings. The complainants sent notice dated 13.03.2009 to the petitioner. In lieu of that, the OP was to have with him the First Floor and he was to supply ‘C’ and ‘D’ Forms and the Completion Certificates to the complainants after obtaining them from the concerned authorities. The petitioner constructed and occupied the First Floor but left the Second Floor unfurnished and he did not renovate the Ground Floor. Thereafter, the complaint was filed where a sum of Rs.43,10,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization was claimed.

3. The petitioner contested this case and pleaded that the State Commission should dismiss their case on two grounds. Firstly, that there was pendency of the civil suit on same allegation/cause of action and relief and secondly, the present proceedings are summary in nature, which involve complex questions of facts and can therefore be decided after recording elaborate evidence of the witnesses, which may be led only before the Civil Court. The learned State Commission dismissed these objections vide order passed on 28.02.2012.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondents cannot file the case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the same cause of action and they have borrowed the paras from the civil case and inserted the same in this complaint. He pointed out that their main purpose is to save court fee and harass the petitioner unnecessarily. He further argued that their purpose is to rob off the petitioner with his hard-earned money. He pointed out that the learned Trial Court has placed reliance on the Delhi High Court authority reported in Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Amardeep Singh Virk and Ors, 161 (2009) Delhi LT 88 (DB), where the facts are altogether different. The same is not applicable to this case. He contended that in other authorities, a contrary view was taken. In support of his case, he had cited few authorities before us.

5. In M/s. Guru Nanak Plastic Industries v. Chairman, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur, the National Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission vide its order dated 21.03.2003 in FA No. 28/1996 in complaint case No. 69/93 of the State Commission, Rajasthan, it was held that

“9. Before we conclude, we may add that it has become a practice for many complainants in the complaints to claim damages which has no co-relation with the loss suffered and these inflated amounts are stated with a hope that some amount would become payable. This a practice which must be discouraged”.

6. Learned counsel also cited another case of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad, reported in Niranjanbhai Choksi v. Kanaknidhi Corporation and Ors.1

7. Lastly he cited two authorities, reported in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha2 and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. N.R. Vairamani and Anr.3

8. In the last authority, it was held that :

“9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in which the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid’ theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to b