This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 6.2.2017  passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred as State Commission ) in FA No.32/2016.

2.       Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was a member of a Chit of Rs.1 lakh and was subscribing Rs.2,000/- per month. He was to subscribe for 50 months. However, in the chit auctioned on 26.10.1997 the complainant became the winner and he agreed to take Rs.55,000/- and was willing to forego Rs.45,000/-. The OP paid the amount of Rs.35,000/- but retained Rs.20,000/- which  was stated to have been retained as a fixed deposit and  the same was to mature after three years and the maturity value was Rs.32,000/-. The complainant alleged that this amount was not paid to him and therefore, the complaint was filed before the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the OP by filing the written reply. The District Forum finally dismissed the complaint by passing the following order:

      “As per the reply notice of the opposite party/Chit Fund, the complainant suppressed material fact of execution petition pending against him. 

      Secondly, it seems Rs.92,225/- is still due to opposite party as per the said reply. 

      The case is pertaining to 1998 transaction. The cause of action is not convincing, hence barred buy limitation.

                So the complaint is rejected.”

3.       The complainant then preferred an appeal before the State Commission  bearing No. FA/32/2016 and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 16.2.2017.

4.       Hence, the present revision petition.

5.       Heard the petitioner in person and perused the record.

6.       The petitioner stated that both the fora below have not gone into the merits of the case and  the case of the  petitioner is based on merits as the OP has not paid the maturity amount of the fixed deposit of Rs.20,000/-. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the material facts were not disclosed by the complainant and that the complaint was time barred. It was stated by the petitioner that the matter was being pursued with the OP and when all hopes of getting the maturity amount were shattered, the complaint was filed.  The State Commission has observed that lot of civil litigation was there between the parties and complainant suppressed all these information before the District Forum as well as before the State Commission and therefore, the complainant has not come with clean hands and the appeal has been dismissed only on this ground.  The petitioner requested that the case must be decided on merits rather than on technical grounds. The petitioner further stated that the civil suit mentioned in the order of the State Commission is not directly related to the present matter of the complaint.

7.       I have carefully  considered the arguments of the petitioner and have examined the record.

8.       The District Forum has observed in its order that the matter relates to 1998 and the complaint has been filed in the year 2015 and therefore, the matter was highly time barred. The fact of the matter is that the complainant was pursuing various  civil suits as observed by the State Commission in its order as follows:

       “During the course of arguments the learned defence counsel has submitted copies of judgment in O.S. No.129/2001 of the Principal Judicial Civil Judge, Karimnagar A.S. No.11/2004 of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karimnagar and order passed in IA No.2285/2008 in O.S. No.76/2007 by the Principal Judicial Civil Judge, Karimnagar. All these documents show that the suit in OS No.29/2001 was decreed on 19.01.2004 in favour of the Opposite Party Company herein and that the appeal preferred against it in A.S No.11/2004 by the complainant herein and his three guarantors in the chit transaction, was dismissed on 30.06.2006.  Thereafter the complainant has filed the suit in O.S. No.76/2007 against the Opposite Party Company herein for recovery of the amount covered by the Fixed Deposit. During the pendency of the said suit the Opposite Party herein filed I.A. No.2285/2008 under Section -11 of  the Code of Civil Procedure and the same was allowed on 19.01.2012 by the Principal Judicial Civil Judge, Karimnagar by holding that the suit  was hit by the principle of Rasjudicata.

       The complainant did not dispute all these facts in the present appeal. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has approached the  District Forum by suppressing the material facts and with unclean hands.”

9.       Though Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an additional remedy which can be availed of by the complainant, but the accepted principle is that the complainant cannot pursue his case at two forum either simultaneously or one by  one until permitted by the earlier forum. In the present case, when the complainant did not get relief from the civil cases, he has filed his complaint case. Obviously, the complaint was highly time barred and District Forum was right in rejecting the complaint on the ground of limitation. Special periods of limitation have been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a speedy disposal of consumer disputes as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) wherein the following has been  observed ;

          “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras”.

10.     Though the petitioner has stated that the civil suits are not related to the subject  matter of the present complaint, however, the observation of the State Commission clearly throws light on the nature of these cases. This is also true that once the matter has been litigated before any civil court and that court has decided the matter, then that decision becomes res judicata against future disputes over the same matter between the same parties. Therefore, complaint before the consumer forum is not maintainable as the matter has been litigated between the same parties before a civil court and orders have been passed.

11.     From the above discussion, it is clear that the complaint was highly time barred and no proper justification has been given by the petitioner for such delay and it has been rightly dismissed by the District Forum. It is also true that the parties  have litigated the matter in the civil court and therefore on the same subject matter, the consumer forum cannot take up the same dispute for resolution as the same would be hit by res judicata also. Both the fora below have given concurrent finding that the petitioner/complainant has suppressed the material information about civil suits which were decided against him and therefore, both the fora below have held that the petitioner has not come to the consumer forum with clean hands. As the concurrent finding has been given by both the fora below on the facts, the scope under the revision petition is quite limited as held by then Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the Apex Court has observed the following:

   “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

12.     Considering the above grounds, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 6.2.2017  passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission and accordingly, the Revision Petition No.1121 of 2017 is dismissed in limine.