HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revision petition is at the instance of the revisionist / petitioner Aroop Kumar Mukherjee and is directed against the order No. 09 dated 11/10/2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-II (Central) ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with M.A. Case No. 354/2021 arising out of complaint case No. CC/352/2021 whereby the Learned District Commission was pleased to reject the maintainability application filed by the opposite party, Aroop Kumar Mukherjee.

2. The respondent Asit Ranjan Chakraborty being the complainant filed a complaint case under section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 being No. CC/352/2021 praying for the following reliefs :-

“a) To admit and register the complaint;

b) After hearing please to direct the opposite parties to deliver the possession and execute and register deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant as per agreement for sale dated 31.08.1991 after making payment of stamp duty, registration charges and advocate fees by the opposite parties, and / or refund the paid amount along with @12% p.a. interest;

c) To award compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony, financial loss;

d) Rs.90,000/- for litigation cost;

e) For any other relief or reliefs as your Honour may deem fit and proper.”

3. The opposite party Aroop Kumar Mukherjee entered appearance in this case and was contesting the case by filing written version.

4. Subsequently, the opposite party Aroop Kumar Mukherjee filed an application challenging the maintainability of the complaint case.

5. The Learned District Commission was pleased to reject the said maintainability application by the order impugned.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the revisionist / petitioner has preferred this revisional application.

7. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist / petitioner and carefully perused the record, memo of revision petition and other documents.

8. The Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist / petitioner has argued that the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission is not proper and not according to law.

9. He has further urged that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act.

10. He has further urged that the Learned Commission erred to consider that the complainant filed the complaint not in clean hands and suppressing the material facts.

11. He has further urged that the Learned Commission erred to consider that on the self same cause of action a civil suit is going on between the parties. So, the revisional application should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.

12. On the contrary, the Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has argued that the Learned District Commission has correctly decided the matter and there was no chance to entertain the M.A. Case.

13. He has further urged that both the civil and consumer case can run simultaneously and, as such, there is no bar to proceed with the consumer case. So, the revision petition should be dismissed with exemplary cost.

14. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist / petitioner and on careful perusal of the record, the memo of revision petition and other documents it appears to me that civil suit has been filed prior to filing of the present consumer case being No. CC/352/2021.

15. It also appears to me that reliefs claimed in the title suit and in the consumer case are identical but the plaintiff of civil suit and the complainant of the consumer case are not identical. Moreover, I find that the present consumer case is not barred by res judicata as because the civil suit not yet decided finally and it is still pending.

16. In M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Amardeep Singh Wirk and Ors. reported in AIR 2009 Delhi 122 the Hon’ble High Court at New Delhi observed that :

“In the light of the judgments discussed hereinabove, there is no room for any doubt that proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act and in a Civil Court can simultaneously go on, even if the issues involved in the two proceedings are substantially similar. The remedies are independent of each other. The existence of parallel or other adjudicatory Forums cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction created under the Consumer Protection Act.”

17. An another case reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras Vs. Ved Prakash and Ors. reported in (2013) 7 SCC 622 Hon’ble National Commission by order dated 07/11/2014 in connection with consumer case No. CC/383/2013 and other connected complainants has pronounced that :-

“We are, therefore, of the view that the trial in criminal cases against the Opposite Party, is no ground for stay of proceedings before the Consumer Fora. As a matter of fact, having regard to the object and intend of the Act, summary trial of Consumer Complaint has to be given precedence over other cases, be it civil or criminal in nature. The question of double jeopardy, self-incrimination or the binding effect of the findings in summary proceedings under the Act, does not arise on facts, at hand. Accordingly, the first preliminary objection fails.”

18. In view of the above discussion I hold that the Learned District Commission has rightly rejected the Misc. Application being No. M.A./354/2021.

19. After giving due consideration to the submission made by the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on scrutiny of the materials available on record I do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in passing the order impugned. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

20. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition is dismissed on contest with costs of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be paid by the revisionist / opposite party in favour of the complainant within 15 days from the date of passing of this order and to show a receipt of payment to that effect before the Learned District Commission by the next date positively.

21. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. The parties are directed to appear before the Learned District Commission on 21/08/2024 for receiving further direction from the said authority and to show receipt as to the payment of costs by the revisionist / opposite party.

22. The Learned District Commission is requested to dispose of the case as early as practicable without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

23. The office of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-II (Central) for information.