Costs paid. Complainant/petitioner purchased a Maruti car in the year 2003 which was financed by opposite party no.3/respondent no.3 herein. He obtained a loan of Rs.1,55,000/- which was to be repaid in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.4,225/-. Grievance of the -2- petitioner is that he had paid almost the entire loan when opposite party no.2 called him to its office for verification of the vehicle. By taking him into false confidence, opposite party no.2 took the keys of the car by saying that the keys are required for routine inspection for sending the report to the office of opposite party no.1. Subsequently, the complainant was told that the vehicle was confiscated by the opposite parties on the ground of some outstanding dues. No receipt of confiscation was issued to the complainant. The further say of the complainant is that the respondents sold the vehicle at a throwaway price. Aggrieved by this, the complaint was filed. District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which the respondents filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint was barred by the principle of Res Judicata as the complainant had also filed a civil suit on the same cause of action in the civil court Rajpura. -3- Counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides an additional remedy and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to file the complaint even though he had filed the suit as well; that in any case, the suit having been dismissed for non prosecution for non appearance on 02.03.2009 the State Commission should have proceeded with the complaint. We do not find any substance in this submission. Section 3 provides an additional remedy of the consumer but that does not mean that he can simultaneously proceed in two different forums/courts or that he can seek relief from the civil court as well as the consumer fora simultaneously. The complaint was filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit. Suit was dismissed after the decision of the District Forum on 02.03.2009. The State Commission is absolutely right in observing that the complaint was not maintainable as the petitioner had already approached the civil court for the redressal of his grievance. Simultaneous proceedings seeking the same relief in two different courts can lead to passing of inconsistent and contradictory decrees. It is a cardinal principle of civil law that -4- passing of contradictory and inconsistent decrees are to be avoided at all costs, otherwise it will be very difficult to implement the orders by the court/authority. We have gone through the order passed by the civil court which is as under: “Present: Counsel for Plaintiff BM Bansal for the plaintiff. Counsel for defendants No.1,3 & 4 Sh.BS Sodhi, Advocate Learned counsel for Plaintiff pleaded not instruction on behalf of plaintiff. None else has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff despite calling case a number of times since morning. Now it is 3.30 PM. Heard. Under these circumstances, suit is dismissed in default. File be consigned to the record room.” A perusal of the order would show that no opportunity was reserved with the petitioner to file the suit/complaint on the same cause of action. Since no opportunity was reserved with the petitioner to file the second suit, the complaint was not maintainable. The complaint was clearly barred by the principle of Res Judicata. -5- Petitioner cannot take recourse to two simultaneous proceedings on the same cause of action. For the reasons stated above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. No merits. Dismissed. | 
