The Judges Con­cluded

Consumer Voice - - Legal Matters -

De­spite the above-men­tioned ar­gu­ments, Jus­tice VB Gupta agreed with the find­ings of the State Com­mis­sion and gave the fol­low­ing rea­sons for the same:

1. “We re­it­er­ate that when two-three au­thor­i­ties are avail­able to any per­son to file ju­di­cial pro­ceed­ing for the re­dres­sal of his griev­ance, pro­pri­ety de­mands that he has to choose one and pur­sue the rem­edy to the hilt or to the log­i­cal end, but he can­not be per­mit­ted to file civil suit in the Civil Court and for the same re­lief file con­sumer com­plaint in the District Con­sumer Fo­rum. This is noth­ing but a bla­tant mis­use of pro­vi­sions of Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion Act, 1986, and the Code of Civil Pro­ce­dure.”

2. “The Con­sumer Fo­rum is in ad­di­tion to the ju­ris­dic­tion of other au­thor­i­ties, par­tic­u­larly Civil Court func­tion­ing in the State of Ma­ha­rash­tra or for that mat­ter all over In­dia. But once party chooses to ap­proach Civil Court for the same re­lief, he can­not be per­mit­ted to file con­sumer com­plaint pend­ing the civil suit he has al­ready filed for the same re­liefs. Com­plainants Kan­ti­lal Shah and Da­mayanti K Shah hav­ing al­ready ap­proached Civil Court in the year 2002 were not per­mit­ted in law to file con­sumer com­plaints in the year 2003 for the same re­liefs,

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.