Tribunals and Commissions(1993) 05 NCDRC CK 0082

T.G.KUTHA BAKSH vs Commissioner, Madurai Corporation

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 5 May 1993 · Citation: 1993 2 CPJ 907

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.A.Kader , R.N.Manickam , Ramani Mathuranayagam J.
RESULT
Complaint dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 295 words
1.

THIS is a complaint directing the , the Municipal Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai to give service connection to the newly constructed first floor building in Door No. 23, T.P.K. Road, Madurai and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. THIS is posted for admission.

2.

THE Counsel for the Complainant is heard. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant has already filed a suit in O.S. No. 2015 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai for mandatory injunction directing the Opposite Party herein, the Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai to give separate service connection to the first floor of the building in Door No. 23.T.P.K. Road, Madurai. THE learned Counsel has also produced before us the certified copy of the plaint. We find from the plaint that the Complainant has in O.S. No. 2015 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai for the same notes(?). THE matter is therefore subjudice and the Complainant is not entitled to file this complaint in respect of the matter which is already in subject matter of the suit. It has been repeatedly held by the National Commission and by this Commission that a matter which is subjudice before a Civil Court cannot be adjudicated by this Commission. THE Complaint is not therefore maintainable. It is pointed-out by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant that inspite of the temporary mandatory injunction given by the District Munsif, the complainant has not given electric connection. If this allegation is true, it is open the Complainant to file a necessary objection before the Civil Court. That is not a ground for preferring a separate complaint before this Commission. In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed but without costs. Complaint dismissed.