(Delivered on 23/02/2017)

PER MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE, HON’BLE PRESIDENT.

1.         Heard submissions at the Bar. This appeal is preferred against the Judgement and order dated 15.05.2010  in the consumer Complaint case no. 129 of 2010  passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at  Nagpur  where by the Complaint was dismissed .

2.  Facts stated briefly are as under:-

            Opposite Party in the Complaint proceedings had loan agreement with the Complainant as the Complainant intended to buy a Truck. OP had seized the Truck as OP wanted to recover the Loan. Parties had entered in the Arbitration proceedings pending with the Arbitrator since 28.05.2009 in which the Complainant had filed the Claim statement. The Complainant had filed a Civil Suit no. 529 of 2007 in which there was an order  dated 05.04.2009 for reference to the arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The complainant had challenged the said order in the High Court, against the Opposite Party decided by the order dated 21.10.2009.  Petition no 4091 of 2008 for Contempt of Court was also filed by the Complainant in the High Court, which was dismissed on 21.10.2009, on the ground that the Complainant had participated in the arbitration proceedings.

3.         The submissions from the respondent is that the two parallel legal proceedings pursuant to the legal remedies adopted by the parties on the same cause of action cannot continue in two different forums. While according to the Appellant notwithstanding the arbitration proceedings, the remedy to approach the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is available to the Complainant.

4.         The learned Forum did not find it appropriate and logical to decide the case in which the High court , Nagpur Bench had already decided and ordered the Parties  to resort to arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitrator pursuant to the order passed by the Civil Court in pending Civil suit between the Parties .

5.         The ruling in Arun Kashinath Pingale Vs Madhukar Sonanis and others  2010(2) CPR 261 (NC) was cited before us . Legal position appears clear that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy not in derogation of the other Acts. The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is supplementary and not to supplant the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts or other statutory authorities. The ratio of the ruling was in the facts and circumstances of the case appreciated correctly by the Forum below for dismissal of the Complaint. In our view Competent Civil Court in pending Civil Suit between the same parties  has all the incidental and consequential necessary powers  to deal with and  determine the real controversy between the  same parties inclusive of awarding compensation and Costs  in the larger  interest of justice. Multiplicity of the various legal proceedings on the same cause of action in parallel  subjudice matters  is not to be encouraged  between the same parties ,merely because the Complainant can claim compensation and costs from the Consumer Forum in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 being an additional and supplemental  remedy. There is no need to multiply rulings on this legal position explained by Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

6.          Approach of the Forum below is found correct.  No ground is made out for to interfere with the impugned Judgement and order passed by the Forum below. Hence the appeal is dismissed with Costs quantified in the sum of Rs 25,000/ payable by the appellant to the respondent herein.