BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 30^th day of November 2011

Present:-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

I.A. No. 457/2011 in C.C. No. 621/2010

Between

The Assistant Executive :: Petitioner/opposite party

Engineer, (By Adv. Jeemon John,

Kerala Water Authority, M.D.V. Complex,

Water Works Sub-Division, Opp. L.F. Hospital, Angamaly)

Kaloor, Kochi – 17.

And

K.K. Rajam, :: Respondent/Complainant

W/o. V.K. Sadanandan, (By Adv. George Cherian,

Sreeyus, LBS Road, Karippaparambil Associates

Edappally. P.O., Advocates, H.B. 48,

Kochi – 24. Panampilly Nagar, Cochin - 36)

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party challenging the maintainability of this complaint. According to the petitioner, the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint vide O.P. No. 488/2004 in this Forum and the Forum had allowed the complaint on 02-02-2005. It is contended that in consequence of the order, the petitioner has issued a fresh bill which is the impugned bill in the present complaint. It is further contended that the respondent ought to have filed execution application to execute the order in O.P. No. 488/2004 instead she filed the instant complaint which is legally not maintainable. This petition hence.

2. The respondent/complainant has not filed objection to this petition.

3. We heard the counsel for the parties and went through the evidence on record. In the complaint itself, the complainant mentioned the existence of the previous complaint. The complainant admitted that in furtherance of the previous order, the respondent/complainant has called upon to pay the amount as per the bill in question.

4. Evidently, the cause of action for the previous complaint and the present complaint are one and the same. The remedy available to the complainant has already been answered by order of this Forum dated 02-02-2005, it is unimaginable why instead of obeying the same, the complainant has approached this Forum on the same ground.

5. Therefore, we are only to hold that the present complaint for the same cause of action is barred by the principles of res-judicata. So, the present complaint is not maintainable on whatever grounds.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 27^th day of August 2011.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President. Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.