Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved over dismissal of its maintainability petition by the Ld. District Forum, this Revision u/s 17 (1) (a) & (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is filed by M/s Sree Ganesh H.P. Gas Agency.

Case of the Revisionist, in short, is that, notwithstanding a complaint bearing no. CC/363/2015 has been filed before this Commission by M/s Pintu Prasad & Others against the Revisionist over the accidental death of Smt. Sardha Devi and others, over the self same cause of action, the Respondents/Complainants initiated a separate case before the Ld. District Forum.  Accordingly, it moved the instant maintainability petition before the Ld. District Forum.  However, the same being dismissed by the Ld. District Forum, aggrieved with such decision, present Revision was moved.

Both sides were heard in the matter and the documents on record carefully gone through.

It appears from the documents on record that on 21-03-2015 an incident of fire from gas leakage took place at the kitchen of the Respondents/Complainants. Owing to said accident, 3 persons, namely, Subhas Prasad, Sardha Devi @ Saroda Devi @ Sarada Devi Prasad @ Sarada Prasad, and Puja Devi succumbed to their burn injuries; whereas, Respondents/Complainants suffered severe burn injury which entailed considerable treatment cost. 

In view of this, two separate cases were filed – one by the kith and kin of Lt. Subhas Prasad claiming compensation and other relief in respect of the accidental death of Subhas Prasad and his wife Sardha Devi @ Saroda Devi @ Sarada Devi Prasad @ Sarada Prasad being CC/363/2015 and the other being CC/46/2016 filed by the Respondents/Complainants claiming reimbursement of the treatment cost pertaining to the burn injury of Puja Devi, Manoj Prasad and Rina Devi.

On proper evaluation, it appears that though two separate cases have been filed before two different Fora in respect of the self same cause of action, the nature of these cases and the relief sought for therein being altogether different, there has been no infirmity behind initiation of two different cases.

The maintainability petition was rightly rejected by the Ld. District Forum.  Accordingly, the same does not call for our interference in any manner whatsoever.

The Revision, accordingly, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Revisions stands dismissed against the Respondent Nos. 1&2 with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Revisionist to the Respondent Nos. 1&2.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.