HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD Vs. AMARDEEP SINGH WIRK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue which arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the proceedings before the Consumer Forum should remain stayed and await the decision of the outcome of the proceedings involving similar issues pending before this High Court. .The present appeal arises out of the order dated 5th March, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) claimed a direction to set aside an order dated 6th November, 2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in a complaint preferred by the respondent No.1 (original respondent in the writ petition). The basis of the writ petition was that substantially similar, if not identical issues are pending trial in this Court in Civil Suit No. 1700 of 2005 (Jatinder Kaur Wirk v. Mitsubishi Motor Corporation and Ors). The respondent No. 1 claimed to have purchased a Mitsubishi Pajero, manufactured by the appellant. The vehicle met with an accident while being driven by respondent No. 1s brother who sustained fatal injuries and died. As per the respondent No. 1, the vehicle had manufacturing defects and on the ground of those and other allegations, he claimed compensation. The wife of respondent No. 1s brother, Mrs. Jatinder Wirk filed a suit before this Court, claiming inter alia, damages for negligence against the appellant.

(2.) AS per the appellant, the issues which concern the respondent No. 1 are common to the suit pending in this Court which was at an advanced stage. As per the appellant, continuation of both the proceedings, would have a deritorious effect and could result in conflicting orders. As per the appellant, despite this being pointed out, the State Commission had proceeded with the complaint and he contended that the impugned order of the State Commission recorded that merely because a plea had been raised before the High Court alleging manufacturing defect, there would be no bar against the owner of the car to seek release as prescribed under Section 14(1) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As per the appellant, identical issues with regard to alleged manufacturing defect of some parts of the said vehicle have been raised which require a trial and in these circumstances, it would be appropriate that the authority under the Consumer Protection Act should have stayed its proceedings in the interest of justice and awaited the order and decree of the High Court as that would have been binding on the appellant.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge has rightly held that Section 3 of the Act cannot imply that the rights created under the Act could be curtailed on the ground of pendency of other proceedings. It was also correctly held relying on judgments of the Supreme Court, by the learned Single Judge that existence of parallel or other adjudicatory Forums cannot take away or exclude jurisdiction created under the Consumer Protection Act.