BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.14 OF 2013 AGAINST CFR NO.368 OF 2012 DISTRICT FORUM ADILABAD
Between:
Chunarkar Swapna W/o Jnaneshwar
Aged 30 years, occ:House Wife
R/o H.No.12-414, Rk 6 Huts
Gandhinagar, Sri Rampur,
Dist.Adilabad
A N D
1. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.,
rep. by its Branch Manager, Br.Office
Mandamarry, Dist. Adilabad
2. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. by is Branch Manager, Sahara India Bhavan-1
Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow-024
3. National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
D.O.IV Jeevan Bhavan Phase-1, 43, Hazrat Gunj
Lucknow (UP)
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. `1,50,000/- and compensation, `50,000/- and costs.
2. `10,000/- and the scheme provides for insurance coverage to the members for a sum of`1,50,000/- in case of the member’s death in an accident. The appellant’s husband sustained injuries in a road accident and died while undergoing treatment in NIMS, Hyderabad `10,000/- and omitted to pay the accident benefit.
3.
4. `50,000/- which was rejected at the admission stage by the District Forum on the premise that the appellant has to approach the principal court of original jurisdiction against the order of the arbitrator and not the District Forum.
5.
6.
7.
8.
i) State of Karnakata & others vs All India Manufacturers Organization and others
ii) Caronet Constructions (India) Pvt Ltd vs Sri Ram Chits Tamilnadu(P) Ltd and another
iii) M.Nagabhushana vs State of Karnataka and others (2011)3 SCC 408.
iv) National Seeds Corporation Ltd vs Madusudan Reddy 2012(2) SCC 506.
v) Installments Supply Ltd vs Kangra Ex-serviceman Transport Company and another
vi) N.Surendra Sai vs The Chief Post Master General of A.P. Circle and others CDJ 2010(Cons) case no.082.
vii) In C.Venugopal Vs The Secretary, The Cooperative Housing Society Limited
viii) In HDFC Bank Limited Vs Yarlagadda Krishna Murthy in F.A.No. 848 of 2011 of this Commission.
9.
In Resjudicate is a doctrine based on the larged public interest
10.
‘Where identical issues between the same parties have been decided by the arbitrator, ...the same issue could not be raised once again. The earlier decision would operate as resjudicate....The State commission cannot sit over the decision in arbitration proceedings’
11. he Supreme CourtM. Nagabhushana’s decision considered importance and applicability of principle of resjudicata in the following words:
That principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the color and pretense of law inasmuch as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right. The doctrine of res judicata has been evolved to prevent such an anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea of res judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the rule of law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty and a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties.”
12. The ratio laid in the aforementioned decisions is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as the facts of the case in the above said decisions and those of the present case are not the same.
13.
“ The remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available to a grower.
14.
“
15.
“ The State Commission by an elaborate order and after discussing all the relevant aspects has dismissed the complaint at the stage of admission.
16. This Commission in C.Venugopal’s case held that:
However, we have not come across a decision where the District Forum could sit over on the award passed by an Arbitrator. The award that was passed by the Arbitrator cannot be circumvented by filing a complaint before the District Forum.
17.
“ In the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme court wherein it was held that once the complainant opts for remedy of arbitration it may be possible to that he cannot subsequently file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act..”
18.
9. The Ld. Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed memo vide CFR No.1260/09, dt.08.12.2009 stating that as the matter is already referred to arbitrator for its disposal keeping matter pending before the forum is fo no use and parties are at liberty to approach the forum if they are aggrieved by the order of the arbitrator.
10.
19.
20.
కె.ఎం.కె.*
