Delhi

New Delhi

CC/253/2012

Amarjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/253/12                                                                                                                     Dated:

 

In the matter of:

SHRI AMARJEET SINGH

S/O SHRI KIRPAL SINGH,

R/O WZ-793, 2^ND FLOOR,

VISHNU GARDEN,

NEW DELHI-110071.

                 

         ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

M/S. ICICI BANK LTD.,

CORPORATE OFFICE AT:

BARAKHAMBA ROAD-110001

 

ALSO AT

 

E-1 JHANDEWALAN,

NEW DELHI-110055

 

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

PRESIDENT: S K SARVARIA

 

By this order we shall decide the application filed by OP for dismissal of complainant.  This application arose out of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming the following reliefs against OP:-

1. Direct the respondent to release a sum of Rs.70,000/- as delivery charges which the complainant lost due to non-delivery of the goods on the fixed date to the consignee;

2. Direct the respondent to release a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages against loss of reputation and earnings;

3. Direct the respondent to release a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages against the harassment, mental pain and agony caused to the complainant due to the act / conduct on the part of the respondent;

4. The cost of the complaint may also granted in favour  of the complainant.

5. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in the interest and furtherance of justice.

We heard the arguments on application filed on behalf of the OP under section 11 of Consumer Protection Act read with section 24 A CPC Act, 1986. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that one of the relief regarding release of vehicle is not claimed in the present claim and fresh complaint is filed due to subsequent cause of action. The copy of earlier complaint is also produced by the Ld. counsel of the complainant. The objection of Ld. AR for OP is that the complaint was earlier filed in 2008 and was dismissed in default on 5.1.2010 (copy of an order placed on behalf of OP as Annexure-A).  Therefore, present complaint is not maintainable.

We have carefully heard the arguments. The earlier complaint was dismissed in default on 5.1.2010.  We find present reliefs claimed are on the same cause of action and all but one relief were claimed in the earlier complaint also.  The mere fact that one of the reliefs stood satisfied and is not claimed in the present complaint does not make present complaint on different cause of action so the complainant is not entitled to file fresh complaint owing to the reason that the earlier complaint was not decided on merits.  The present subsequent complaint filed on 16.4.2012 alleging accrual cause of action in Para 29 of the complaint as on 27.1.08 is undoubtedly not only on same cause of action but also is barred by time as it is filed after prescribed limitation period of 2 years and no application for condonation of delay is filed by the complainant. The matter may be looked from for either angle but the result is the same, the complaint has to be rejected. Therefore, we allow the application under section 11 of Consumer Protection Act read with section 24 A CP Act, 1986 filed by OP and reject the complaint.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free

of cost by registered post..This order sent to serve www.confonet.nic.in.

Pronounced in open Forum on 29.4.2016.

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

(H M VYAS)             (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER                          MEMBER