GHULAM RASOOL vs REGIONAL MANAGER, JAndK STATE FOREST CORPN.

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 21.5.2001 passed by the DF by virtue of which DF has not only dismissed the complaint of the appellant but under Section 20 of J&K State Consumer Protection Act has directed the appellant/complainant to pay Rs. 2,000.00 as costs to the respondents for filing vexatious complaint.

BRIEFLY put the case of complainant is that he filed first complaint on 18.4.1998 which was dismissed on 9.2.1999. Restoration application was filed by the appellant which too was dismissed on 2.8.2000. Complainant/appellant filed a fresh complaint on the same facts on 16.9.2000 which was dismissed by the DF by passing the impugned order dated 21.5.2001. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that first complaint filed by him did not resolve the dispute between the parties. According to the learned Counsel for appellant the fresh complaint will only if the original complaint has been dismissed in default and the dispute remains unresolved on merits. According to him case can be decided on merits. He has relied on New Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan, 2000 Vol. III SC Cases 242. Learned Counsel for appellant has contended that the Apex Court in the case supra has held the same view as has been argued by him.

We have gone through this authority and considered the rival arguments in the case. We are of the view that this authority will not apply in the case in hand because the case in hand was filed on 18.4.1998. Other party was noticed. They have filed written version also on 25.6.1998. Complainant was asked to produce evidence in support of his claim. Case was adjourned to 20.7.1998 on which date complainant remained absent. Case was again adjouned to 11.8.1998 on which date also complainant did not present himself nor the evidence was produced. Thereafter case was adjourned to 15.9.1998. On this date also neither the complainant presented himself nor evidence was produced. Thereafter case was adjourned to 29.10.1998 and then to 15.12.1998. On these two dates also the complainant did not produce the evidence so the right to furnish his evidence was closed and OP was asked to produce the evidence, case was listed for 9.2.1999. O.P. did not produce the evidence and expressed that there is nothing on the record to rebut so they will not produce the evidence. DF passed a detailed order on 9.2.1999 and discussed the photostat copies of the documents on the complaint. DF dismissed the case on merits for want of proof.

HERE ordinarily complainant should have filed an appeal but he has filed a restoration application which too was dismissed. Our considered view is that once the case is dismissed on merits and the complainant does not produce any evidence, fresh complaint cannot be filed on the same facts. In the Supreme Court case cited supra that case was dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits. But the case in hand has been dismissed on merits so if the fresh application is allowed it will open flood gate for filing such complaints and there will be no end to the filing of complaints. This will cause more harm to the consumers than any benefit can be derived by them by this novel procedure. For these reasons, therefore, we are convinced that the present complaint had rightly been dismissed by the DF. So far as the compensation of Rs. 2,000/- is concerned we are convinced that the complainant had bonafidely filed the complaint on the brief that the first complaint was not decided on merits so he tried his fate by filing fresh complaint. We quash the judgment to the extent of compensation. Appeal disposed of.