ORDER (ORAL) The present Appeal has been filed by the Complainant against the order dated 23.07.2013 of the State Consumer -2- Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.55 of 2013. This case has a chequered history. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) had initially filed Complaint No.103 of 2005 relating to the issues qua allotment of flat No.2291, Sector 23, Sonepat vide memo No.13284 dated 14.06.2002. That Complaint was decided by the District Forum vide order dated 02.06.2006, whereby the said Complaint had been allowed. The Respondents (hereinafter referred to as “HUDA”) filed Appeal No.2554 of 2006 before the State Commission challenging the order of the District Forum dated 01.06.2005 and the said Appeal was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 31.03.2010. Against the dismissal order of the State Commission, HUDA preferred Revision Petition before this Commission which was registered as Revision Petition No.641 of 2011 and was dismissed vide order dated 27.04.2011. Dissatisfied with the order of this Commission, HUDA filed an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was registered as SLP (Civil) No.15192 of 2011 and the said Appeal was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated -3- 19.09.2011. These facts show that the order of the District Forum dated 02.06.2006 in Complaint No.103 of 2005 flat No.2291, Sector 23, Sonepat attained finality. 3. After two years of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on his previous Complaint No.103 of 2005, the Complainant filed fresh Complaint No.55 of 2013 before the State Commission. The State Commission had disposed of the said Complaint vide its order dated 23.07.2013 holding that the matter cannot be reopened by the Complainant by filing the present Complaint since all his contentions raised in earlier Appeal stood decided by the District Forum and the order of the District Forum had attained finality by the dismissal of the Appeal of HUDA by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. This order is impugned before me by the Complainant alleging that the State Commission has wrongly dismissed the Complaint since the fresh Complaint had been filed for different reliefs and hence, the findings of the State Commission suffer with illegality, infirmity and are liable to be set aside. Today he has filed certified copy of the earlier Complaint No.103 of 2005 which he had filed before the District Forum and has relied para 5 and para (11) of the prayer clause in support of the arguments that the first -4- Complaint was for the different relief than the one sought in the latter Complaint filed before the State Commission. It is also argued that the observation of the State Commission that the Complainant had not raised the issue of escalation in the cost of construction, is contrary to record as the Complainant had raised the said issue in his earlier Complaint as well but the District Forum did not give any finding on that issue. Hence the need for filing fresh Complaint arose. 5. Learned Counsel for the HUDA concedes that the observations of the State Commission in the impugned order that the “contentions regarding escalation in the cost of construction have not been raised in the earlier Complaint”, are contrary to the record, since such contention had been duly raised by the Complainant in the earlier Complaint. The fact remains that there is an earlier order on the contentions raised by the Complainant in the earlier Complaint and the said order had attained finality. It is also argued that the Complainant, if dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum on his earlier Complaint, could have challenged the said order but by choosing not to do that, the Complainant had accepted that order and since the said order had attained finality, no fresh Complaint on the same facts and same contentions can -5- be filed and therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the Appeal is liable to be set aside. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 7. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant had filed previous Complaint No.103 of 2005 relating to flat No.2291, Sector 23, Sonepat. He had alleged in the said Complaint that HUDA had promised to hand over the possession of the flat after completion of the development work in the area but HUDA had neither developed the said area nor had provided the basic facilities like roads, sewerage, street lights etc. and no parks, school, footpath had also been developed and no plantation had also been done in the area. It was further contended by the Complainant in his first Complaint that he had applied for the plot in the year 2002 and that HUDA was acting maliciously by wrongly mentioning in the allotment letter that the possession of the plot was offered, although no basic facilities were available in the area and so offering of possession was meaningless. It was contended that he had taken a house on rent and paying ₹4,000/- per month as rent since November 2002. It was also contended that the prices of the -6- building material had gone very high and the Complainant had to bear the cost of construction of the plot to the extent of ₹3 Lakhs. A prayer was also made that the HUDA be directed to pay ₹1,20,000/- which he had paid as rent along with interest and ₹3 Lakhs as difference of price of the building material. 8. In the second Complaint No.55 of 2013 filed before the State Commission, the Complainant had claimed the difference in the increased rate of construction between the year 2002 till the date of filing of the Complaint. Basically he is seeking same relief, i.e., refund of the difference in the increase of cost of construction due to the failure of HUDA in developing the area and giving possession on time. It is clear that the prayers in both the Complaints, i.e. 55 of 2013 and the earlier Complaint No.103 of 2005 are identical in nature, clothed differently. It is apparent that while disposing of the earlier Complaint, the District Forum had not granted the relief relating to the difference in the increase of the rate of construction to the Complainant. It is also apparent that when this relief in the earlier Complaint was denied by the District Forum, the Complainant did not challenge the said order. It was HUDA who had been challenging the said order. By not challenging the District Forum’s order dated 02.06.2006, it is -7- apparent that the Complainant had accepted the order of the District Forum in his earlier Complaint. Vide its order dated 02.06.2006, the findings of the District Forum in the earlier Complaint which were on merit and have attained finality, having been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court acts as res judicata. No fresh Complaint for the same cause of action and relief can be filed. The State Commission, therefore, has rightly dismissed the Appeal. However, there is a wrong recording of certain facts. While the State Commission has mentioned that the Complainant did not claim the difference in the rate of construction in his earlier Complaint No.103 of 2005, the certified copy of the earlier Complaint filed before me by the Complainant shows that he had claimed the same relief but in final order it was denied. This wrong mentioning of fact, however, does not in any way affect the final findings of the State Commission. 9. The present Appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs to the parties. | 
