This Appeal, by the complainant, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), is directed against order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short “the State Commission”) in S.C.C. Case No.CC/36/2013.  By the said order, on an application, by Opposite Parties No.2 and 4 in the Complaint, Respondents No.2 and 4 respectively in this Appeal, the State Commission has stayed further proceedings in the Complaint, till the proceedings in Criminal Case No.K/248/2013, stated to be pending against all the Opposite Parties were concluded.  The State Commission has also drawn support from a decision of this Commission dated 15.9.2010 in RP/2717/2009 and a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 9.9.2009, in Civil Appeal No.5477/2008.

                   We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

                   Recently, a similar issue, viz., whether proceedings in a complaint under the Act should be stayed in a case where Criminal proceedings, emanating from the same incident, had been initiated, came up for consideration before this Commission and vide order dated 7.11.2014, made in CC/383/2013 and other connected complaints, it has been held as follows :

“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 intent 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.”

                   The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. – (2013) 7 SCC 622 has been relied upon in the said decision.

                   In light of the said decision, the impugned order cannot be sustained.  Consequently, following the said order, we allow the Appeal and set aside the impugned order.

                   The State Commission may now proceed with the complaint on merits.

                   The parties/their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 18^th December 2014 for further proceedings.

                   The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.