IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Technical objections do not prevail under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. not made applicable.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant M/s. Madhudhar Petrochem against the order dated 18.12.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Consumer Complaint No.RBT/CC/15/30.

2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant took the insurance policy to protect his business and the policy was valid from 16/04/2009 to 15/04/2010. A fire broke out on 25.03.2010 in the insured premises which was controlled with the help of fire tenders. The claim was lodged by the appellant. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor who submitted his report on 30/03/2010. As no decision was communicated to the appellant the appellant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission with the following prayers:—

(a) That the opp. Party No.2 may be directed by an order of the Hon’ble Commission to produce fire report in respect of fire which took place on 25-03-10 at plot No.80, New Chemical Zone MIDC Taloja Dist. Raigad.

(b) That the Opposite party No.1 be directed by the Hon’ble Commission to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.57,50,000/- being the loss as claimed by complainant.

(c) Pass an order directing the opposite party No.1 to pay Compensatory interest on Rs.50,00,000.00 at a rate of 18% from 01-10-11 till realisation.

(d) Pass an order directing the Opposite party to pay cost incurred in filing and conducting of the complaint.

(e) Pass any other or direction that this Commission may deem fit to be passed in this complaint.”

3. The State Commission dismissed the complaint in limine vide its order dated 02.12.2011. The appellant filed another complaint No.CC13/539 before the State Commission and the same was also dismissed by the State Commission vide its order dated 13.01.2014 on the ground that the second complaint was not maintainable for the same cause of action and between the same parties. The appellant preferred an appeal bearing No.114 of 2014 before this Commission and the order dated 13.1.2014 of the State Commission was set aside by this Commission vide its order dated 11.12.2014 and the matter was remanded to the State Commission for deciding the complaint on merits. However, the respondent opposite party was also given liberty to raise the objection with respect to the maintainability of the complaint. The State Commission vide its order dated 18.12.2015 has again dismissed the complaint on the ground of maintainability and it has been held that the second complaint was not maintainable on the same cause of action and between the same parties.

4. Hence the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that there is no bar in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a person to file the second complaint if a different cause of action has arisen. It was argued that in the present case when the first complaint was filed there was no decision by the Insurance Company and there was no fire certificate issued by MIDC (Fire Brigade) Taloga, Mumbai who was made opposite party No.2. The present complaint has been filed after receiving the proper rejection of claim by the Insurance Company vide the letter dated 18.04.2013. Thus, the cause of action for filing the complaint is different in the present complaint case as compared to the cause of action for filing the first complaint. Though the Insurance Company is now stating that the repudiation letter was first sent on 20.09.2011 and second repudiation letter dated 18.04.2013 is the decision on the representation filed before the Grievance Committee. It was submitted that in the first repudiation letter dated 20.09.2011, it was clearly mentioned that the complainant was required to submit fire certificate as well as some other details and therefore, that letter cannot be taken as the final repudiation letter because the Insurance Company had asked for certain information from the complainant and t