DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.35 of 2019
Date of institution: 10.01.2019 Date of order : 20.05.2019
Surinder Kaur wife of Narinder Singh and Paramdeep Singh son of Narinder Singh, resident of 342, Phase 4, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) 160059.
…….Complainants
Versus
1. Magnus Facilities & Maintenance Pvt. Ltd. Mohali, TDI Business Centre, Sector 118, TDI City, Mohali through its Director Ravi Bhatia.
2. The Director, TDI Infratech Ltd., SCO 144 & 145, Sector 117, TDI City, Mohali.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Narinder Singh, counsel for complainants.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainants purchased SCO Plot No.87, MCP-1 in TDI City, Mohali regarding which allotment letter was issued. It is claimed that complainants started business of sanitary/hardware in the name of Deep Sanitation and Paint for earning livelihood in their show room. One computer is used by complainants for carrying on business of preparation of different colours of paint by using software. No lift has been installed in the show room. Agreement was entered into between Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. as well as complainant Surinder Kaur on 09.12.2011. Maintenance of TDI City has now been entrusted to OP No.1. Parking lights are not working resulting in darkness. Facility of chowkidar not provided. In these circumstances, theft took place in the night of 14/15.11.2018 regarding which intimation was given by Daljinder Singh, Chowkidar of Taj Plaza through mobile. It was found that theft has taken place by breaking locks of shutters. When Narinder Singh husband of complainant No.1 and Paramdeep Singh complainant No.2 reached their show room then four chowkidars were standing in front of show room of complainants. All four of them called upon complainants to take up the matter with TDI so that a chowkidar is deployed for the show room. Previous tenant of complainants gave about 200 phone calls for making street lights functional and for posting security guards, but no action has been taken. Narinder Singh husband of Surinder Kaur complainant also complained of deficiencies many times on phone, but no corrective steps have been taken. Reliance on letters dated 23.03.2018, 01.01.2018, 16.03.2018 and 12.05.2018 placed for claiming that requests for removing deficiencies made. In the absence of security guards, people consume liquor in the verandah of showroom of complainants, which causes nuisance because broken empty liquor bottles remain littered in the verandah. Boys and girls also engage themselves in unethical and socially unacceptable activities. It is claimed that allowing of these activities amounts to violation of Clause 11 (i and iv) of TDI Facility Maintenance Ltd. agreement between Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. and Surinder Kaur complainant. By pleading qua providing of deficient services, this complaint filed for seeking reimbursement of loss of amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of above referred theft. Exemplary charges of Rs.40,000/- more claimed. Prayer made for waiver of maintenance charges for the last three years. Direction also sought to OP No.1 to immediately deploy one chowkidar for show room and make parking lights functional.
2. Arguments for admission purposes heard.
3. It may be mentioned here that earlier complaint No.1273 of 2018 was filed on all the above referred allegations by complainants against present OPs, but same was dismissed at admission stage vide order dated 14.12.2018 by holding that the complainants are not consumers. Earlier complainants did not plead that they were carrying on business for earning livelihood by way of self employment and that is why after relying on law, said complaint was dismissed by holding that complainants being not consumers, cannot file complaint. However, now by adding plea regarding carrying on business for earning livelihood by way of self employment, this complaint has been filed. If really complainants carrying on business for earning livelihood by way of self employment, then there was no hitch for complainants to mention these facts in the earlier complaint. However, now this plea added for bringing complainants within definition of consumer laid down in Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act. So, afterthought versions are introduced in this complaint for showing that complainants are consumers. As complaint with respect to same cause of action for claiming same reliefs has earlier been dismissed on 14.12.2018 by this Forum and as such principle of resjudicata debars complainants from filing this fresh complaint by pleading the afterthought versions. Findings recorded by this Forum in Consumer Complaint No.1273 of 2018 decided on 14.12.2018 regarding complainants not consumers have not been challenged in appeal/revision and as such those findings to prevail in view of principle of resjudicata. In case titled as B.L. Joshi Vs. Bank of India & others, decided on 01.04.2013 by Hon’ble National Commission through Consumer Case No.171 to 174 of 2010, it has been held that complaint under Consumer Protection Act will be barred by principle of resjudicata, if civil court has already decided the same matter. On the same analogy, it has to held that present complaint regarding same cause of action is not maintainable, more so when earlier complaint filed by complainants with same averments and allegations bearing consumer complaint No.1273 of 2018, was dismissed by this Forum.
5. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed. Certified copy of the order free of cost be supplied to the complainants and thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Announced
May 20, 2019.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
