By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President <br /> <br /> Petitioner’s case is as follows:<br /> <br /> Petitioner was a subscriber for a Kuri of the respondent company and the instalment amount was Rs.3,000/- payable on 7th day of every three months. The instalment to be paid quarterly. The petitioner prized the Kuri and he had given Fixed Deposit receipt of Rs.18,000/- of Tirur Co-operative Bank after noting the lien before receiving the prized amount. He had remitted the instalments up to 37 and it was noted in the pass book. Towards the 38 and 39 instalments he had been sent cheques of Rs.2900/- and Rs.3000/- of Kolazhy Service Co-operative Bank. On the cheques it was endorsed that on what account the amount is to be adjusted. The cheques were honoured and the amount was received by the company. When he was gone to the company for paying the 40th instalment he was not permitted to pay since he has not remitted towards the 38 and 39 instalaments. So he had been sent the 40th instalment sum by Money Order. The kuri had 40 instalments and he had paid the entire instalments. Later he had demanded for release of the lien. But it was not done. Lawyer notice sent and reply was sent by the company stating untenable matters. Hence this complaint. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder stating that the 5th day kuri was completed and entire amount has received by the petitioner. No mistake was there from the part of company and the account was closed. The cheques were issued only after consulting with the company regarding the instalment sum. The things stated otherwise are not correct. Original petition is amended as per order in IA.750/05.<br /> <br /> The counter is as follows:<br /> 2. On 17/11/97 petitioner had auctioned the 7th and 8th instalment of the 5th day kuri and deposited Rs.7000/- in the company. The balance amount was received by the petitioner. After that he has committed default. The kuri was terminated on 5/4/00. Subsequently on 5/10/02 petitioner had come to the company for clearing the defaults and the company by mistake credited Rs.14,000/- to him instead of Rs.7000/-. This mistake was later convinced to the complainant. Towards this excess amount cheques were issued by the petitioner and not towards the 38 and 39 instalments. If the cheques are towards the instalments, he has to pay Rs.3045/- to 38th instalment and Rs.3135/- to 39th instalment. The petitioner has liability of Rs.1100/- towards the earlier transactions and also towards the unpaid instalments. Hence dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs.<br /> <br /> 3. The points of consideration are<br /> 1) Is the complaint is hit by the principle of ResJudicata?<br /> 2) Is there any deficiency in service ?<br /> 3)Whether the petitioner is entitled to release the lien noted ?<br /> 4) Reliefs and costs ?<br /> <br /> 4. Evidence consists of Exhibits X1,X2 and Exhibit R1.<br /> <br /> 5. Points : There was a case between the complainant and the respondents before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. The case was filed by the respondent herein against the complainant herein. The certified copy of the judgement is produced here and marked as Ext. R1. The self same matter was disputed and a judicial decision was there. The parties and the subject matter are same. As per Ext. R1, the learned Munsiff elaborately discussed the points and come to the conclusion. At the time of argument it is argued that since this is the former suit, ResJudicate will not hit. This case is filed before O.S.3611/05. But O.S.3611/05 was disposed on merit in the year 2006. As per S.11 of C.P.C. former suit means previously decided suit, it does not mean previously instituted suit. This case is hit by the doctrine of ResJudicata, hence dismissed. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 5th day of August 2008.<br />