Rashmi Textiles, Ramraj Distt. Muzaffarnagar vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

CHALLENGE in these proceedings is to the order dated 09.11.1994 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short ?the State Commission?) in Appeal No. 941/SC/92. The said appeal before the State Commission was filed by the present petitioner-complainant against the order dated 20.08.1992 passed by the District Consumer Forum Muzaffarnagar in complaint case no. 31/92, by which order, the said forum had dismissed the complaint of the complainant-petitioner, however, with the stipulation that if the complainant was not satisfied with the decision of the insurance company, he could approach the Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance. It appears that at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant was not present before the State Commission but the appellant through a letter had prayed the State Commission to decide the appeal on the basis of written arguments submitted by him (appellant) through registered post. The State Commission on going through the said written arguments and after hearing the counsel for the respondent-insurance company dismissed the said appeal by observing as under: "No one is present on behalf of the appellant but as prayed by Sri Hoshiyar Singh Thapar, Proprietor of M/s. Rashmi Textiles through his letter dated 31 October 1994 (received by registered post on 7th November 1994), we proceed to decide the appeal after going through the written arguments sent by the appellant to the Commission. Sri Bhanu Prakash Dubey, Advocate is present on behalf of the respondent (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.). The order under challenge is of 20 August 1992, whereby the District Forum has taken the view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company so as to enable the complainant to get any relief under the provisions of the consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have considered the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal along with the facts pointed out in the written arguments but in our opinion the order passed by District Forum, Muzaffarnagar does not call for any interference. From the facts mentioned in the opening part of this order, it is clear that the Insurance Company cannot be treated to be deficient in its service in any manner having considered and decided the matter (the claim), through by repudiating it, with due dispatch. The appeal has not merit and is dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs".

THE present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed by the petitioner only on 01.11.2006, although the impugned order passed by the State Commission was passed on 09.11.1994 i.e. almost after a gap of 12 years from the date of passing of the order. No application for condonation of such undue delay in filing the revision petition has been filed alongwith revision petition or subsequent thereto explaining the cause of such undue delay. However, when we enquired from the petitioner as to why he has taken such undue long time in filing the present proceedings, he tried to explain that he had not received the copy of the impugned order passed by the State Commission nor he had any knowledge about the passing of the said order until the year 2006 when he through the RTI application sought information about his appeal which he had filed in the State Commission. That pursuant to the said RTI application, copy of the order dated 09.11.1994 was supplied to him and soon thereafter he filed the present petition. According to him there is no delay in filing the present petition if the period of limitation of 90 days prescribed for filing such proceeding is computed w.e.f. the date on which he received copy of the impugned order. We have heard the petitioner but we are unable to believe the above explanation put forth by the petitioner in regard to the delay of 12 years in filing the present petition. This is particularly so in view of the fact that the complainant had filed a civil suit being suit No. 38 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Muzaffarnagar praying the same relief which he had prayed in the complaint. It appears that complainant must have done so pursuant to the order passed by the District Forum and the State Commission, relegating him to the Civil Court if he was not satisfied with the decision of the Insurance Company. Strangely enough and for the reasons which have not been disclosed, the complainant had even withdrawn the said civil suit by making an application as far back as on 19.08.2006. It appears to us that petitioner was well aware of the order passed by the State Commission on his appeal as far back as in the year 1994 but instead of resorting to the appropriate remedy by approaching this Commission, he chose to file civil suit for redressal of his grievance, for which liberty was granted to him by the District Forum. He did not pursue such remedy and left it midway by withdrawing the suit. A party must choose one adjudicating forum if there are more than one redressal of his grievance and cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate his course by approaching different adjudicating forums that too after he has failed in one forum. In such a situation he should exhaust his remedy under the hierarchy of the same forum. In the case in hand, it appears to us that after the order of the District consumer forum, the petitioner himself chose to avail the remedy of filing civil suit before the competent civil court but once the said suit was dismissed, he has approached this Commission for invoking its supervisory jurisdiction. In our view such a course is legally impermissible.

Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the view that present petition is nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioner to abuse and misuse the jurisdiction of this Commission. The petition is accordingly dismissed in liminie for the above stated reasons.