Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 18 (UTT)

Girish Chandra Tripathi v. Up-Dakpal

2004-04-05

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2004
JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the order dated 15.10.2003 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar it was held that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint that he is an Editor & Publisher of his monthly magazine. It is sent throughout India The telegraphic department has given the concession to him to send magazines on confessional rates. The magazine is registered under that provision. The concession was given through letter dated 27.03.1997. It is alleged that the opposite party has got no right to reduce this concession. It is alleged that the complainant fulfils all the standards to get that concession. Because the opposite party has refused to send the magazines at confessional rates and there. fore there is deficiency in their service and the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifteen Thousand) as compensation along with other expenses. 3. It is not alleged in this complaint on which date the refusal was made by the postal department and on what date the complainant had to pay fine on the postal articles. The actual date of cause of action has not been given in the complaint before the Learned Forum in 1999. The complaint was filed on 07.08.1999. The opposite party filed written statement on 27.10.1999. 4. However, the complainant has filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Hardwar as well. From Para 1 to 9, the allegations of the complaint before the District Forum and the Civil Judge are the same. It is alleged in the case before the Civil Judge that the registration of the complainant has been cancelled through a letter dated 01.10.1999 without affording any right of hearing and therefore a suit for mandatory injunction was filed. 5. The fact remains that in the com. plaint as well as in the suit, the fact is to be decided whether the complainant has got a right to send articles on confessional rates or not? It is alleged that the opposite party refused sending and in the civil suit it is alleged that the registration was cancelled. 5. The fact remains that in the com. plaint as well as in the suit, the fact is to be decided whether the complainant has got a right to send articles on confessional rates or not? It is alleged that the opposite party refused sending and in the civil suit it is alleged that the registration was cancelled. Nevertheless in both the cases what is to be decided is whether the complainant has right to send the articles on confessional rates, whether the opposite party can refuse sending on confessional rates and whether through letter dated 01.10.1999 registration could have been cancelled by the opposite party or not? Merely because the complainant filed the complaint for cause of action before 01.10.1999 and filed a civil suit for the cause of action after 01.10.1999, the subject matter of dispute does not change. 6. Civil Court is a court of inherent jurisdiction. It has got right to decide every dispute of civil nature under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, unless specifically barred. It is settled principle of law that a right under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional right, it is not in derogation of any other right. The complainant therefore has got every right to challenge the matter before the civil court, which he challenged before the consumer forum. In the civil court, he can get any relief, even the compensation as he has claimed from the consumer forum. What was desirable for him was that he should have taken back his complaint from the consumer forum and should have filed a suit in the Civil Court, besides claiming the mandatory injunction which he has claimed, also compensation for the period in which he was not allowed to send articles on confessional rates. The proceedings before the consumer forum are summary proceedings and consumer forum will not lay its hand in any dispute or subject matter which is being agitated in the civil court or should have been agitated in the' civil court. Even if the suit has been filed in the civil court later on, then also when the civil court has taken cognizance of these matters, it was all proper for the complainant to have sought the entire relief from the civil court itself. Even if the suit has been filed in the civil court later on, then also when the civil court has taken cognizance of these matters, it was all proper for the complainant to have sought the entire relief from the civil court itself. He cannot say that this part of the dispute is consumer dispute, therefore in the consumer forum and this part of the dispute is a civil dispute, therefore in the civil court. The powers of civil court are vide enough to decide the cases pending before the consumer forum . as well but its vis-a-vis is not correct. 7. In these circumstances, we find that the Learned Forum has rightly decided that parallel proceeding shall not lie before the consumer forum. At least we have examined the decision of the civil court and therein also there was a issue whether the magazines of the complainant are not being sent according to the conditions of registration and this is the actual dispute which the Learned Forum had to decide. 8. We do not find any force in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy.