R.P. Lahiri vs Technology Cooperative Group

THE applicant had filed an original petition/complaint. He had sought to incorporate a number of reliefs to his complaint and had filed an amendment application. However, on being pointed out that some of the reliefs were not maintainable, perhaps on the ground that the complainant had himself approached various fora and courts; first the Additional Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and thereafter to the Cooperative Tribunal and further the matter had been taken up even before the Hon?ble High Court, where he had received some reliefs, this Commission allowed some of the amendments to his complaint, by virtue of which the matter was taken up for final adjudication. However, vide the order dated 15th of December, 2009, the complaint was dismissed. By virtue of the present application, the complainant, even though does not state in the application that he is seeking a review of the order, submits that necessary rectification/corrections in the order dated 15th of December, 2009 passed in Original Petition No. 71 of 1998 be incorporated in his favour. Thus, the complainant is seeking a review of the order, which has already been passed by this Commission on the merits of the case, that too belatedy. THE only ground advanced by him is that while the final cost of the flat was correctly assessed at Rs.6,07,000/-, this Commission even after taking into account that the complainant has paid Rs.5,50,055/- erroneously held that the complainant was still required to pay the balance amount. In fact he contends that, on the contrary, he would be entitled to a refund if an amount of Rs.86,300/- towards the cost of the staircase is reduced from the cost of the flat.

WE have considered the arguments advanced by the complainant only to be rejected for the simple reason that he has resorted to multiple litigations in different fora and obtained various reliefs. He is trying to intermingle those reliefs to the limited question of compensation with which this Commission was concerned. In the guise of a review/rectification request, the order passed by this Commission on the basis of the merits of the case cannot be permitted to be re-opened for de-novo consideration. The Miscellaneous Application No. 144 of 2010 is, accordingly, dismissed.