BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN vs GURJEET SINGH & ORS.

This appeal has been filed under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the interim impugned order dated 01.06.2016, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Complaint No. 06/2014, Gurjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Bareilly Development Authority, vide which, the said complaint was admitted for hearing and fixed for filing the written reply of the opposite party (OP)/appellant. The OP has filed the present appeal, saying that the State Commission should have declined to admit the consumer complaint no. 06/2014, being not maintainable.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He stated that consumer complaint no. 06/2014 was the second complaint filed by the complainants/the present respondents, whereas the matter had already been decided in an earlier complaint filed by the complainants and a sum of Rs. 12,62,933/- had been received by them vide cheque no. 544884 dated 07.02.2015, in pursuance of the orders passed by the consumer fora. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the order passed by the State Commission on 18.09.2014 in appeal no. 303/2010, vide which, the present appellant was directed to refund the money deposited by the complainants alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. There was no occasion, therefore, for the complainants to start another round of litigation by way of the second complaint. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to the written statement filed by them before the State Commission, in which, the appellant had mentioned about appeal no. 303/2010 before the State Commission. The learned counsel stated that during hearing before the State Commission, their counsel had stated that the appellant had already registered the plot in favour of a third party and even the possession had been handed over to that party on 04.02.2015 after registration of sale deed. However, the State Commission still decided to admit the said complaint, saying that the cause of action in the present complaint and the earlier complaint were different. According to the learned counsel, the State Commission should not have admitted the second complaint and hence, the impugned interim order should be set aside.

The main issue that merits consideration in the present case is whether the admission of the complaint in question by the State Commission is in accordance with law or not. As observed in the impugned order, the cause of action in complaint no. 06/2014 and the earlier complaint no. 220/2008 are distinct, and even the relief sought is different. The State Commission concluded that the principle of was not applicable in the present case. They res-judicata decided to admit the complaint and gave opportunity to the appellant to file their reply. There does not seem to be any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the said order, because the appellant is free to agitate their view point before the State Commission. It was not obligatory on the part of the State Commission, to have first decided the maintainability of the complaint, before formally admitting the same. It is held therefore, that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is ordered to be dismissed in limine with the observation that the appellant shall be at liberty to agitate the points mentioned in the appeal before the State Commission in hearing before them. There shall be no order as to costs.