Delhi

North East

CC/27/2019

Saira Bano - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ameel Khan - Opp.Party(s)

03 May 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 27/19

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Saira Bano W/o Sh. Israr Ahmad R/o- C-1194, Gali no. 13 Indra Gali, Chauhan Banger Seelampur North East, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
	Sh. Ameel Khan S/o Sh. Mujammil Khan R/o C-1/14, Imam Bade Waali Gali New Seelampur, Delhi-110053	Opposite party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

23.02.2019 03.05.2019 03.05.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The present complaint filed by the complainant in this Forum in February 2019 pertains to complainant having approached the OP for construction of property against which a consideration of         Rs. 7,00,000/-  was paid by complainant to OP between April 2018 and July 2018 with the belief that the OP will construct the suit property but OP failed to do same for which the complainant lodged a police complaint with DCP (North East) against OP on 27.07.2018 and issued a legal notice through counsel on 01.09.2018 and lastly filed a Civil Suit for recovery at Karkardooma Courts in December 2018 claiming recovery of the deposited amount of Rs. 7,06,443/- alongwith the interest @ 18% p.a. thereon and damages and litigation cost which is pending before Shri Brijesh Garg Ld ADJ, Karkardooma Court as on date.
2. At the stage of admission, the complainant was directed by this Forum to place on record certified copy of the Civil Suit and order sheets passed by the concerned court at Karkardooma Court as same is pending. In compliance of the order, the counsel for complainant placed on record the same and the original was seen and returned.
3. It is an admitted case of complainant that she has already filed a Civil Suit for recovery vide Suit no. 286/2018 in Karkardooma Court on the same cause of action ‘prior’ to filing the present consumer complaint praying for the same relief i.e. recovery of the amount paid to the OP as can be determined on perusal of copy of the plaint filed before Karkardooma Court. The Hon'ble National Commission in Edit II Productions Vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. IV (2015) CPJ 51 (NC) observed in the case that since the relief sought in the consumer complaint and Civil Suit are almost similar, the complainant cannot be permitted to pursue the same remedy before the two Forums because there is a possibility of contradictory findings resulting in anomalous situation and complaint cannot not be allowed luxury of extending parallel proceedings on the same cause of action under two jurisdiction burdening the judicial system and held that since the complainant had opted not to withdraw the Civil Suit, the complainant has not locus to maintain the consumer complaint and it would be apt that Civil Court decides the matter and dismissed the complaint with liberty to the complainant to pursue his remedy before Civil Court. The Hon'ble National Commission in majority Bench judgment of Damayanti Kantilal Shah Vs. Rashmi Grihnirman Ltd. and Ors. I (2016) CPJ 235 (NC) in a similar case where a complainant had already filed Civil Suit for possession and injunction in Civil Court prior to filing of consumer complaint before District Forum with relief claimed for handing over possession of flat was of the opinion that the consumer complaint was not maintainable when Civil Suit for same relief has already been filed before the Civil Court prior to filing of consumer complaint as the same cannot be permitted and also observed that it is immaterial that complaint may contain additional relief regarding interest and compensation not sought in the Civil Suit as party cannot not be allowed to pursue two remedies simultaneously and dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner on such ground that once complainant approaches Civil Court for relief, complaint for same relief before District Forum was not maintainable. The Hon'ble National Commission in Dhanprakash Industries Corporation & Anr Vs J.M. Industries I (2018) CPJ 275 (NC) held in a case where the subject matter in Civil Suit filed ‘prior’ to consumer complaint in District Forum was similar and issue involved and relief claim were also same and Civil case was pending, that all such issues be decided by one Forum only and that Forum would be the Civil Court due to pendency of the suit.
4. In the present case, in light of the settled proposition of law as discussed exhaustively herein above in the ratio laid down therein by Hon'ble National Commission, we reiterate that when various judicial platforms are available for redressal of grievance, propriety demands that the person chooses one and pursues it to the logical end rather than indulging in Forum shopping since such activities are nothing but blatant misuse of process of law. In this case, the complainant had already chosen to approach Civil Court at Karkardooma for same relief and once she had done so she cannot be permitted to file a consumer complaint pending the Civil Suit; she has already filed for the same relief. It is for this reason we cannot allow the present complaint seeking similar relief in the nature of dual recovery and dismiss the same and non maintainable and warn the complainant to desist from such malpractice in future by abusing process of law.
5.  Let a copy of this order be sent to complainant free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
6.   File be consigned to record room.
7.   Announced on  03.05.2019

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member