Rupendra Kumar Brahma vs Prodip Kumar Basu & 3 Ors

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member

The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Dr. Rupendra Kumar Brahma (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OP-3’) against the Order dated 31.12.2019 passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressed Commission, West Bengal at Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), whereby it dismissed the IA to stay of all the proceedings before the State Commission, till disposal of the Criminal Case being filed by the Complainant pending before the Addl. District & Session Judge at Barasat.

Heard the arguments from the learned Counsel for the Appellant. Perused the material on record inter-alia the Order of the State Commission.

The Doctor (OP-3) / Appellant filed an IA/1022/2019 before the State Commission to stay the proceedings in the Complaint No. CC/332/2019, as the Complainant filed a Criminal Case on the same ground before the Addl. District & Session Judge at Barasat and it was pending. The State Commission dismissed the IA with following observation. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:-

“……Hon’ble National Commission in Dimple Bawa – Vs- Bellevue Clinic and Ors. in FA 822/2013 decided on 11.11.2014 held that – “We are, therefore, of the view that the trial in Criminal case against the Opposite Party is no ground for stay of proceeding before the Consumer Fora as a matter of fact, having regard to the object and intent of the Act, a summary trial of Consumer complaint has to be given precedence over other cases, be it Civil or Criminal in nature”. Placing reliance on the said decision of the Hon’ble National Commission as well as another decision in Indrani Chatterjee & Anr.–Vs- AMRI Hospital through its Management, we are of the view that the Trial of Criminal cases against the Applicant / OP No. 3 is no ground for stay of proceeding before the Consumer Courts.”

This Commission previously in CC/383/2013 and other connected matters dealt with a similar issue about whether proceedings in a complaint under the Act should be stayed in a case where Criminal proceedings, emanating from the same incident, had been initiated. Vide order dated 07.11.2014, this Commission observed as below:

….9. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival stands, we are of the opinion, that the plea of dismissal or stay of proceedings in the Complaints, on the touchstone of the principle of self-incrimination, as enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, is stated to the rejected. Apart from the fact that the very concept of self-incrimination is foreign to the proceedings under the Act wherein the Opposite Party is not an accused as in a criminal proceedings. Neither the rigors of the Evidence Act 1872, nor of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 are attracted in the proceedings under the Act, which provides for an alternative system of consumer justice by summary trial. Hence, we outrightly reject the argument. As regards the question of stay of the proceedings in the Complaints because of pendency of criminal cases against the Opposite Party, we are of the view that this plea also merits rejection. Recently the question of simultaneous prosecution of the criminal proceedings with civil suit, came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras (supra). Relying on the observations of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriff Vs. State of Madras AIR 1954 SCC 397, the Court held that no hard and fast rule could be laid down in this regard. Nonetheless the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is not a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, which is not even the case of the Opposite Party here.

….10. We are, therefore, of the view that the trial in criminal cases against the Opposite Party, is no ground for stay of proceedings before the Consumer Fora. As a matter of fact, having regard to the object and intent of the Act, summary trial of Consumer Complaint has to be given precedence over other cases, be it civil or criminal in nature. The question of double jeopardy, self-incrimination or the binding effect of the findings in summary proceedings under the Act, does not arise on facts, at hand. Accordingly, the first preliminary objection fails.

Based on the forgoing discussion and in the view already taken by this commission in CC/383/2013, the instant Appeal is dismissed. The matter is remitted back to the State Commission, which may now proceed with the complaint on merits.

The parties/their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 01.11.2022 for further proceedings.