JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. MADHU ARORA
LAWS(NCD)-2021-4-4
NCDRC
Decided on April 22,2021

JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Appellant
VERSUS
Madhu Arora Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER, J. - (1.) 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) ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.