PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                Heard Mr.Vincent D’souza-Complainant in person on the point of admission and perused the complaint and the documents produced with it.  The complaint is about providing Form No.16A dated 21^st September, 2010 after three years on 21^st August, 2013.  The complainant has prayed as under :

(b)     The opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- with 12% interest

(c)     Breach of Trust Rs.5,000/-

          Forgery Rs.5,000/-

          Criminal Breach of Trust Rs.5,000/-

          Criminal Cheating Rs.5,000/-

          Breach of Contract Rs.5,000/-

          Cost of Complaint Rs.2,000/-

          Malpractice Rs.5,000/-

          Cost of litigation Rs.5,000/-

          Mental Agony Rs.5,000/-

          Negligence Rs.5,000/-

          Mental Torture/Harassment Rs.5,000/-

Earlier also, the complainant has filed Complaint Case No.CC/14/82 before this Forum in respect of the same Form No.16A with a prayer of total compensation of Rs.18 Lakhs with interest and the same was dismissed by this Forum on merit vide judgment dated 17^th March, 2015 with direction to the complainant to pay cost of litigation Rs.10,000/- to the opponent/Central Bank of India.  The complainant preferred appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission bearing First Appeal No.A/15/316.  The Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 3^rd June, 2015 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of this Forum.  Again, the complainant has filed this complaint in respect of the same Form No.16A with a prayer for monetary relief.  At this juncture, we would like to rely on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2335 of 2014, in the case of Jagmohan Bahl & Another –Versus- State (NCT of Delhi) & Another, decided on 18^th December, 2014.  In para 13 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred the earlier judgment in the case of Chetak Construction Limited –Versus- Om Prakash and Others.  It is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under :

This court has observed that a litigant cannot be permitted “choice” of the “forum” and every attempt at “forum-shopping” must be crushed with a heavy hand.  In Tamiland Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association –Versus- S.C.Sekar and others, it has been observed that the superior courts of this country must discourage forum-shopping.

Though the said decisions were rendered in different context, the principle stated therein is applicable to the case of present nature. Unscrupulous litigants are not to be allowed even to remotely entertain the idea that they can engage in forum-shopping, depreciable conduct in the field of law.

We would also like to refer the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of M/s. R.S. Metals Private Limited –Versus- The New India Assurance Company Limited, decided on 5^th August, 1992.  In para 10 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has laid down as under :

Para 10 : This Commission, however, feels that the State Commission has not given due importance to the misconduct-nay criminal misconduct-on the part of the Appellant- complainant in support of his complaint.  It is evident that the Appellant complainant has misused the Consumer Protection Act and the machinery set up under the Act to prosecute a complaint on the basis of false and fabricated evidence.  This is reprehensible and must be discouraged strongly. This is particularly important because the Consumer Protection Act provides cheap and quick Redressal of genuine consumer’s grievances and it is a matter of paramount public importance that no person should misuse the remedies available under this Act for lodging false complaints on the basis of fabricated evidence and harass the persons who supply goods or render services.  We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint filed by the Appellant.  The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent as costs.

2)                The complainant has filed total seven complaints against the present opponent i.e. Central Bank of India.  Two complaints are already decided on merit by this Forum.  Three complaints are pending for further adjudication. Two cases including this complaint are pending for admission.  There are several other complaints filed by the complainant against the banks, post office and other institutes.  It shows that the complainant is in the habit to file complaints for monetary gain.  In view of the abovesaid observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission, we think, it will be in the interest of justice to restrict the complainant from misusing the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act by filing complaints for monetary gain.  Today, there are seven complaint of complainant for admission. Moreover, this complaint is in respect of Form No.16A for the year 2010. It is apparently barred by limitation. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint stands dismissed at stage of admission itself.
2. Inform the Complainant accordingly.

Pronounced on 13^th May, 2016