Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Jalandhar Improvement Trust – Appellant
versus
Madhu Arora – Respondent
First Appeal No.1286 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 17/05/2018 in Complaint No.981/2017 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 22.4.2021
For the Appellant:Mr. Sachin Mittal and Mr. Ashu Ralhan, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Updip Singh, Mr. Sukhandeep Singh and Ms. Rashmi Singh, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
“Law does not permit the complainant to go on filing fresh complaints for the same relief after the same had been rejected in her earlier complaint.”
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 19 and 2(1)(c) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 41 and 2(6)] – Second complaint – Same subjects matter with same relief – Scope – Complainant has again sought for refund of money deposited, the relief which the had sought in her earlier complaint – Since there already exists an order in earlier complaint relating to claim for refund of money, no fresh complaint for the same relief can be filed – State Commission erred in deciding the second consumer complaint – Impugned order is contrary to earlier order of a Forum having jurisdiction over the issue – Impugned order set aside.
Held: It is apparent that in the said Appeal, the Complainant had prayed that the Trust be ordered to refund her deposited amount and the State Commission in its order has rejected this prayer. The State Commission has held as under:
“16. Since, the OP indulged in unfair trade practice to launch the scheme as the entire land was not in possession of OP as land owners had challenged the award before Hon’ble High Court and OP should have waited for the outcome of litigation before launching the scheme. In that eventuality, the District Forum should have passed the order for refund of deposited amount but it passed the order of penalty for not developing the area and to deliver the possession. Since no cross-appeal filed by the complainant, therefore, refund order cannot be passed. However, there is escalation in the cost of construction due to late delivery of possession of plot. In that background penalty of Rs.1 Lakh is the just compensation. We do not find any point to set aside the order of the District Forum. The same is hereby affirmed.
It was thereafter that the Complainant had filed the Complaint No.981 of 2017.
It is apparent that in this Complaint, the Complainant has again sought for refund of the deposited money, the relief which she had sought in her earlier Complaint No.86 of 2014. The law does not permit the Complainant to go on filing fresh Complaints for the same reliefs after the same had been rejected in her earlier Complaint No.86 of 2014 and which order the Complainant had not challenged. Since there already exists an order in her earlier Complaint No.86 of 2014 relating to her prayer/claim for refund of the money, no fresh Complaint for the same relief can be filed. In view of these facts, it is apparent that the impugned order dated 17.05.2018 is an illegal order as the State Commission has committed a jurisdictional error by deciding the second Consumer Complaint No.981 of 2017. The impugned order is contrary to the earlier order of a Forum having jurisdiction over the issue, i.e., the District Forum in earlier Complaint No.86 of 2014. The impugned order is illegal and cannot be sustained. The impugned order therefore needs to be set aside. The Appeals are hereby allowed and the Complaint No.981 of 2017 stands dismissed (Paras 5 to 9)
Result: Appeals Allowed.
ORDER
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—Vide this order, I propose to dispose of two First Appeals No.1286 of 2018 and 844 of 2018 filed by the Opposite Party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust”) against the order dated 17.05.2018 in Complaint No.981 of 2017 and the order dated 06.04.2018 in MA No.495 of 2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”). By the order dated 06.04.2018, MA No.495 of 2018 in Complaint No.981 of 2017 filed by the Trust was dismissed by the State Commission on the ground that the principle of Res Judicata was not applicable to the said Consumer Complaint. The State Commission vide order dated 17.05.2018, allowed the Complaint No.981 of 2017.
2. The case has a long history. The history shows that the Complainant had earlier filed a Complaint No.86 of 2014 before the District Forum wherein she had made several prayers. The Complaint was disposed of by the District Forum vide its order dated 26.02.2015. An Appeal No.1087 of 2015 was filed by the Trust against the said order. Since the Appeal was filed with a delay, the Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2016 on that ground alone. In the Revision Petition, this Commission remanded the matter back to the State Commission vide order dated 20.09.2016. The State Commission thereafter vide its order dated 18.04.2017 dismissed the Appeal. The Complainant filed another Complaint No.981 of 2017 before the State Commission. During the pendency of this Complaint, an application MA No.495 of 2018 was filed by the Trust on which the order dated 06.04.2018 has been passed. Subsequently, the second Complaint No.981 of 2017 was allowed by the State Commission vide order dated 19.05.2018.
3. The brief facts of the case show that in the earlier Complaint No.86 of 2014 relating to the same subject property, the Complainant had made the following prayers:
“16. ………….
Under the aforesaid circumstances it is respectfully prayed that the Opposite Party may be directed to repay the amount of Rs.16,24,450/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment of said money by the complainant to the Opposite Party till the date of repayment and to further pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental harassment, tension and agony and financial difficulties to the complainant by negligent, deficient series and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties and to further pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation in the interest of justice, equity and god conscious.
It is further prayer that any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may be granted in favour of the complainant.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. Vide the order dated 26.02.2015, the District Forum on Complaint No.86 of 2014 rejected the prayer of the Complainant for refund of the deposited amount. It passed the following order:
“7. ……… So, in these circumstances, the Opposite Party cannot be directed to refund the amount paid by complainant to her. Complainant can approach the Opposite Party trust to take possession of the allotted plot and on its failure to do so, complainant can initiate appropriate legal proceedings against it. However, Opposite Party is deficient in its services in not developing the scheme area within stipulated period.
5. The Complainant had not challenged this order of the District Forum whereby her prayer for refund of the deposited amount on account of deficiency on the part of the Trust was rejected. Rather, it was the Trust who filed the Appeal No.1087 of 2015 which was finally disposed of vide order dated 18.04.2017. It is apparent that in the said Appeal, the Complainant had prayed that the Trust be ordered to refund her deposited amount and the State Commission in its order has rejected this prayer. The State Commission has held as under:
“16. Since, the OP indulged in unfair trade practice to launch the scheme as the entire land was not in possession of OP
