MAHAJAN STELL SALES Vs. SANTOSH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the registration of a criminal case for a connected ancillary offence would be a bar to the maintainability of a consumer dispute before the redressal agencies under the Act? This is the solitary though significant question in this revision.

(2.) In view of the pristinely legal issue aforesaid the facts giving rise thereto pale into insignificance. These may, therefore, be noticed in the barest outline. The respondent-Smt. Santosh Rani has alleged in her complaint that she purchased 175 bags of cement from the petitioner concern. This was used in the construction of her building. However, when the lintel and the slabs were opened, they cracked and fell down to the ground. The complainant alleged a patent defect in the cement supplied due to the adulteration thereof. She claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.95,000/-.

(3.) The petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint. It was their case that the complainant had earlier lodged a false F. I. R. at Police Station Thanes war alleging that the petitioner was selling fake cement. Thereon a criminal case under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under Sec.420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Shri Ashwani Kumar, a partner of the firm. He was arrested and released on bail after 4/5 days and during the investigation, 33 samples including the samples of slabs and fallen lintel were taken and sent for analysis to the State Laboratory. This preliminary objection was strenuously pressed and an order on the maintainability of the complaint was sought at the very threshold.