GOMATI Vs. DIRECTOR STATE INSURANCE AND G P F DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed by Smt. Gomati who is mother of Late Shri Rajesh Ashumod against Director, State Insurance and G. P. F. Deptt. , Govt, of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Opposite Party No.1) and Head Master, Govt. Secondary School, Kolana Tehsil Baswa, Distt. Jaipur (Opposite Party No.2) under Sec.12 read with Sec.17 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein ). The complainant alleged that Late Shri Rajesh Ashumod was his son and he was employed as clerk under Opposite Party No.2. He expired on 9.9.1990. In the nomination column and the Insurance and G. P. F. amount Shri Rajesh Ashumod had named the complainant as the nominee. "the number of P. F. is 550212 and that of Insurance is 550602. " She has alleged that she is entitled as the nominee to receive the amount. The Insurance and G. P. F. amount was Rs.61,900/-. The Opposite Parties did not pay the amount to the complainant on account of which she had suffered mental agony and financial hardship for which she is entitled to receive Rs.1 lakh as damages alongwith interest @ 24% p. a. She has claimed the amount as nominee of Late Shri Rajesh. The complaint was filed on 18.3.1991 praying that the Opposite Parties may be ordered to pay to the complainant Rs.1,61,900/- immediately. With the complaint she submitted death certificate and the photostat copy of nomination form. Notice was ordered to be issued to the Opposite Parties. Both the Opposite Parties have not filed any version of the case. On 5.6.1991 an application was submitted by Smt. Urmila Sharma stating that she is widow of late Shri Rajesh Ashumod and that as widow she is entitled to the amount of Rs.61,900/- for which the complaint has been filed by her mother-in-law. She has stated the facts on the basis of which she is entitled to receive the amount. In the application she has also stated that the complainant has instituted a suit in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Jaipur West, in regard to this amount and so she is not entitled to get any relief from the State Commission on the basis of the complaint. It may be stated that on 4.5.1991 Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta L. A. State Insurance Department Jaipur submitted an application mentioning that the complainant has instituted a suit on 23.3.1991 in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur West and as the suit is pending on its basis the complaint should be dismissed. With the application he submitted the copies of notice, plaint and the application. The suit was for permanent injunction. It was instituted against four defendants: 1. State Govt, through Chief-Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.2. State Insurance Deptt. through Director, State Insurance Deptt.3. District Education Officer First, Jaipur, Outside Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.4. Head Master, Govt. Secondary School, Kolana, Bandikui, Jaipur.

(2.) Alongwith the suit she submitted an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec.151 CPC and the affidavit in support thereof. A perusal of the application shows that the complainant (plaintiff) prayed that a temporary injunction may be issued against the Opposite Parties restraining them during the pendency of the suit not to pay the amounts of G. P. F. and Insurance of A/c No.580212 and 550602 to any other person and status quo may be maintained. It is clear that the Opposite Parties in the complaint are also defendants in the suit. The subject matter in the suit is G. P. F. A/c No.550212 and Insurance A/c No.550602. The subject matter of the complaint and the suit are identical. The relief claimed in the complaint is consequential relief that has been claimed in the suit and for that purpose temporary injunction was prayed for. It may be stated that with the complaint the complainant submitted an application dated 16.3.1991 praying that the Opposite Parties namely Director and Head Master to be directed dining the pendency of the complaint, amount of insurance policy, G. P. F. amount of the deceased Rajesh be not paid to any other person other than the complainant. The application for temporary injunction filed in the suit and purported stay application filed in the complaint are more or less the same.

(3.) We have carefully looked into the complaint, application for grant of temporary injunction and affidavit. The subject matter of the suit is more or less is the subject matter of the complaint. The reliefs thought not actually worded in the same words but they are almost the same. It is settled by the National Commission in various cases that where a matter is sub-judice before a Competent Court the Redressal Forum should not entertain a complaint in respect of the identical subject matter. Reference may be made to M/s. Does Piston Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State Bank of India,1991 CSMR 173 (Original Petition No.30 of 1989 decided on Oct.17,1989) () and Consumer Unity and Protection Centre V/s. Nadiad Municipality and Others,1991 CSMR Case 145 (Original Petition No.7/88 decided on May 10, 1989) ().