State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Ramesh Keshav Jadhav vs City & Industrial Development Corpn. on 21 August, 2007
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2007 Date of filing : 19/01/2007 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 212 OF 2004 Date of order : 21/08/2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : THANE Dr.Ramesh Keshav Jadhav R/at 10/211, D.N. Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053. Appellant/org. complainant V/s. City & Industrial Development Corpn. CIDCO Office, H.O. Nirmal, 2nd floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Respondent/org. O.P. Corum : Justice Mr.B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member Present: Appellant Dr.Ramesh Jadhav in person.
None for the respondent.
- : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Judicial Member Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of complaint passed by the District Consumer Forum Thane, org. complainant has filed this appeal.
The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
The complainant had filed consumer complaint against respondent/CIDCO in the year 2004. Prior to that he had already filed Complaint No.578/1995, which was decided on 19/09/1998 by District Consumer Forum Thane. As per that order, CIDCO was directed to pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation and to make certain compliances. Aggrieved by this order, CIDCO preferred Appeal No.2356/1998. Appeal was dismissed by this Commission and CIDCO was directed to remove the defects in the flat given to the complainant or otherwise to pay Rs.1,10,000/- as cost of the repairs to the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, CIDCO preferred Revision Petition No.1064/1999. But, said Revision Petition was disposed of with the directions to the CIDCO to remove defects found in the construction of the flat. However, amount of compensation was reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Thereafter, complainant filed Darkhast No.20/2001 and said Darkhast was made over to City Civil and Sessions Court since CIDCO Bhavan, Headquarter of CIDCO was situated at Nariman Point, Mumbai. Aggrieved by this order of making over the Execution Proceeding to the City Civil & Sessions Court, the complainant approached the Bombay High Court by filing Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition was decided by Honble Bombay High Court on 17/04/2003 and the Bombay High Court opined that the execution proceeding filed by the complainant should be decided by the District Consumer Forum Thane itself in view of Section 25 & 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 specifically enacted to get executed the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum. Instead of prosecuting Darkhast No.20/2001 in terms of directions of the Bombay High Court, complainant/appellant herein filed fresh complaint in the year 2004 bearing No.212/2004 in the Forum below. The written statement was filed by the CIDCO and they had pleaded that the new complaint is hit by principle of res-judicata as embodied in Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The CIDCO took up the plea that the grievances in the present complaint are already answered in favour of the complainant in the previously instituted complaint, which was decided in his favour by the Forum below. Moreover, CIDCO pleaded that as per directions of the National Commission in Revision Petition, they had sent a cheque of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant and he had accepted the same and therefore earlier complaint ultimately decided by the National Commission in Revision Petition was complied with and therefore present complaint on the same sets of facts is not tenable in law.
Considering the affidavits and documents filed before it, the Learned District Consumer Forum Thane found that the new complaint based on the same sort of facts is not tenable by law. It is hit by principle of res-judicata as enacted in Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, only thing that was required to be done was execution of previous order of the District Consumer Forum as was modified by the Honble National Commission. According to the CIDCO, they had complied with the order of the National Commission by sending a cheque of Rs.30,000/-. In this view of the matter, the Forum below rightly held that the latest complaint No.212/2004 was hit by principle of res-judicata and complaint as such was not tenable in law against the CIDCO. It was also hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. In any view of the matter, the Forum below rightly dismissed the latest complaint filed by the complainant by its impugned order dated 04/12/2006. We find no substance in the appeal. The appeal as such is required to be summarily rejected. Hence, the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1.
Appeal stands summarily rejected.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) (B.B. Vagyani) Member Judicial Member President dd.