IMPORTANT POINT
Order passed in revision petition against finding of Civil Court shall be in derogation of Civil Procedure Code.

This revision is directed against the order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapura (in short, “the State Commission) dated 8.2.2011 in first appeal No.565/2011.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent filed a consumer complaint alleging that she alongwith her relative Lalitha K.P. took a loan of Rs.2 Lakh from the petitioner bank in Kishan Credit Card Scheme in October, 2004 by mortgaging their property measuring 4.72 acres. After taking of loan a debt waiver and debt relief scheme was introduced by the Central Government. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that under the said scheme the complainant was entitled to the benefit of waiver of the amount covered under the loan with interest. However, the petitioner/opposite party instead of allowing the waiver of entire amount waived the loan amount of Rs.1 Lakh and interest thereon. The respondent/complainant requested the petitioner to waive off the entire loan but in vain. Feeling aggrieved the respondent raised a consumer dispute.

3. The opposite party in its written statement denied having committed any deficiency in service. It was alleged in the written statement that in terms of the loan waiver scheme of the Central Government, the complainant was given benefit of waiver of Rs.1,10,911/- which included the principal amount upto Rs.1 Lakh and interest thereon.

4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/opposite party to right-off the entire loan amount due from the respondent/complainant against her loan account.

5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal and the State Commission while concurring with the order of the District Forum dismissed the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders of the Foras below are not sustainable for the reason that the Foras below have failed to appreciate that in respect of the subject dispute the petitioner bank had filed a civil suit for recovery being suit No.OS/238/2010. Learned counsel has contended that the Foras below in view of the pending civil suit between the parties ought not have entertained the complaint raising the same cause of action. Learned counsel further contended that during the pendency of the instant proceedings the original civil suit was decreed by the court of Sub-Judge, Sulthanbathery and the respondent/complainant was directed to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.1,45,657/- with interest @ 11% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of order and thereafter the interest @ 6% p.a. till the realization of amount. Learned counsel has contended that even the first appeal filed against the order of the Civil Judge has been dismissed and now the respondent/complainant has challenged the order of the appellate court in second appeal which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. It may be noted that this factual position is admitted by learned counsel for the respondent/complainant.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the dispute has already been decided by the Civil Court the present proceedings are not maintainable and the complaint filed by the respondent ought to be dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. Learned counsel has referred to Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and contended that the decision of the Civil Court in respect of the subject matter of dispute has not become final and the pendency of the civil proceedings in second appeal cannot come in the way of the respondent in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any law for the time being in force.

9. We have considered the riva