Sudha Joshi vs Managing Director, Sharekhan Limited & 3 Ors

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sudha Joshi, against the order dated 02.06.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.837/2013.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant deposited some amount with the opposite party in trading account. It has been alleged that the opposite parties have spent the amount deposited by the complainant without her permission. Complainant filed a complaint under the Arbitration Act, and the same was decided in favour of the complainant. The present complaint was filed before the District Consume Protection Forum, Bilwara, (in short 'the District Forum') for getting compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered due to activities of the opposite parties. The District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 19.07.2013.

Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal No.837 of 2013 before the State Commission and the same was dismissed vide its order dated 02.06.2017.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard AR of the petitioner/complainant in person. It was stated by the AR that the main issue of trading account has been resolved under the Arbitration Proceedings and award was passed in favour of the complainant. The present complaint has been filed only for getting compensation from opposite parties for mental agony and harassment that the complainant has suffered on account of deficiencies on the part of the opposite parties which now stand proved under the arbitration award. No case for compensation for mental agony and harassment is maintainable in the Arbitration Proceedings, and therefore, the same complaint has been filed under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which allows the District Forum to award compensation to the complainant. Both the fora below have not considered the law point in this regard and have passed erroneous orders by denying any compensation to the complainant. The State Commission has observed that complaint is barred by res judicata as the dispute between the parties was already decided in the Arbitration award.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the AR and have examined the record. The order of the Arbitrator shall definitely be treated as res judicata for any further dispute between the parties for same cause of action. A consumer complaint can only be filed on the grounds mentioned in Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which states as follows: -

"a "complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that

(i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider;

(ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him; suffer from one or more defects;

(iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect;

(iv) a trader or service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the service mentioned in the com­plaint a price in excess of the price -

(a) fixed by or under any law for the time being in force

(b) displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods ;

(c) displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force;

(d) agreed between the parties;

(v) goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used or being offered for sale to the public,--

(a) in contravention of any standards relating to safety of such goods as required to be complied with, by or under any law for the time being in force;

(b) if the trader could have known with due diligence that the goods so offered are unsafe to the public;

(vi) services which are hazardous or likely to be hazardous to life and safety of the public when used, are being offered by the service provider which such person could have known with due diligence to be injurious to life and safety;"

From the above definition of the complaint, it is clear that no complaint can be filed only for compensation for mental agony and harassment. Moreover, in the present case the Arbitration award will definitely act as re judicata in the matter as rightly held by the State Commission. Hence, in my view, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.

Based on the above discussion, I find that there is no illegality material irregularity or jurisdiction error in the order dated 2.06.2017 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the RP No.2897 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.