AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PETITIONER /Opposite Party No.2 being aggrieved by order dated 01.02.2013, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, ''State Commission '') in (First Appeal No.1283 of 2012) has filed present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act '').
BRIEF facts of this case are, that Respondent No.1/Complainant purchased Minidoor Auto Rickshaw from Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1. This vehicle had been manufactured by the Petitioner. As per case of respondent no.1, since the vehicle was defective he made various complaints but the same was not rectified by the dealer as well as by the manufacturer. Alleging deficiency, on the part of the manufacturer and dealer, respondent no.1 filed a (Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2008) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhoulpur (for short, ''District Forum '').
THE consumer complaint was contested by the manufacturer as well as dealer. The District Forum, vide its order dated 19.09.2010 partly allowed complaint and directed the petitioner and respondent no.2 jointly and severally, to repair the vehicle to the satisfaction of respondent no. 1.
IN compliance of the District Forum ''s order dated 19.02.2010, petitioner as well as respondent no.2 repaired the vehicle to the satisfaction of respondent no.1 and obtained ''Receipt -cum - Undertaking '' dated 14.10.2010, from him to the effect that the said vehicle has been repaired.
EVEN though petitioner complied the order dated 19.02.2010 passed by the District Forum, Respondent No.1 thereafter, filed second complaint (C.C. No. 185 of 2010) against the petitioner and respondent no.2 with regard to the same vehicle and raising similar allegations seeking replacement/refund of the cost of the vehicle.
IN reply to the second complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum, a preliminary objection was taken with regard to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground, that second complaint is barred by principle of res -judicata. There being no cause of action, hence complaint should be dismissed.
THE District Forum after hearing the parties, vide order dated 29.08.2012, allowed the second complaint and directed the petitioner to repair the vehicle within 15 days on its cost, to the satisfaction of respondent no. 1.
BEING aggrieved, petitioner filed (First Appeal No.1283 of 2012) before the State Commission, which vide its impugned order dismissed the appeal.
HENCE , the present revision petition.
WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Laxmi Narayan -Respondent No.1 who has appeared in person.
PETITIONER has placed on record copy of the Receipt -cum -Undertaking 14.07.2010, signed by respondent no.1/complainant. Relevant portion of this Receipt read as under; "RECEIPTCUM UNDERTAKING
Date: 14.07.2010
To,
Force Motors Limited,
Bombay Pune Road,
Akurdi, Pune -411 035
I, Laxmi Narayan Sharma, son of Late Mr. Badri Prasad Sharma, Director of D.P.S. Senior Secondary School, R/at Kaul Colony, Dhoulpur, Rajasthan filed a Consumer complaint numbered as 59/08 before the Hon ''ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhoulpur, Rajasthan, against Force Motors Ltd. In the abovementioned Complaint, Hon ''ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhoulpur, Rajasthan passed an order dated 19.2.2010 directing Force Motors Ltd. to repair our Minidor bearing Chassis No. T 16007134 and Engine No. D 3800439.
I confirm that in compliance of the said order passed by the Hon ''ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhoulpur, Rajasthan, Force Motors Limited has duly repaired our above mentioned vehicle through its Authorized Dealer, Commercial Automobiles, 10 -12, 15/8, 1st Floor, Sanjay Palace, Agara -282005.
Further, I confirm that after such due repairs, I have inspected our abovementioned vehicle and taken Road trial. In view of the same I confirm that I am totally satisfied with the condition and working of our abovementioned vehicle after such due repairs.
I hereby acknowledged and confirm the receipt of delivery of our abovementioned vehicle in sound working condition., I hereby confirm that I have no claim of any nature pending or subsisting on receipt of our above mentioned vehicle after due repairs.
Should you or any our your Director or employees suffer or incur any loss, or expenses or called upon to pay any cost or damages on account of any claim made by me or by any one claiming thru '' me/School subsequent to this date in respect of the abovementioned vehicle, I undertake to make good the same. I shall indemnify and keep each one of you harmless from and against any loss, damages or outgoing of any legal proceedingsinitiatedby and /or my behalf or through me or our School.
This Receipt is signed by me after reading/after understanding the contents and with my free will, and as certification of non -existence of any claim or right against Force Motors Limited.
SIGNAURE OF Sd/-
Mr. Laxmi Narayan Sharma, son of Late Mr. Badri Prasad Sharma,
Director of D.P.S. Senior Secondary School,
Dhourpur, Rajasthan
Place"
AFTER going through the above ''Receipt -cum -Undertaking '', it is manifestly clear that in compliance of order dated 19.2.2010 passed by the District Forum in (Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2008), petitioner had repaired the vehicle of respondent no.1. After repairs, respondent no. 1 had inspected the vehicle and also taken its trial on the road. Further, respondent no. 1 was totally satisfied with the conditions and working of the vehicle after such due repairs. Lastly, respondent no.1 has also confirmed that he has no claim of any nature pending or subsisting on receipt of the above vehicle after duly repaired.
SINCE , petitioner in compliance of order dated 19.02.2010 of the District Forum had repaired the vehicle to the satisfaction of respondent no.1, hence we fail to understand as to how the second complaint filed by respondent no.1 was maintainable at all.
BOTH the Fora below have overlooked and ignored this basic fact and have committed grave error in allowing the second complaint.
BE that as it may, the act of respondent no. 1 in filing the second complaint before the District Forum on similar cause of action, is barred by principle of res -judicata and it amounts to misuse and gross abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, present revision petition stand allowed and order passed by both the fora below are set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent no.1, before the District Forum shall stand dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/ -(Rupees Five Thousand only).
RESPONDENT no. 1 is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" of this Commission within one month from today.
IN case, respondent no.1 fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
LIST on 12th December, 2014 for compliance.