Mr. Nityasundar Trivedi, Member

1. This Revision Petition arises out of the complaint case (being No.CC/145/2018) filed in the D.C.D.R.F, Murshidabad on 11.09.2018 by one Smt. Priyanka Jain (Baid) as the Complainant and M/s. Mobel India Pvt. Ltd. and another as the O.Ps.
2. The background of the Revision Petition is:

           Following dissatisfaction for getting low quality furniture from the Respondent of this case (Mobel India Pvt. Ltd. who was O.P at the District Level), Smt. Jain, the Complainant at the District Level moved Hon’ble District Commission for redressal. 

3. Case No.165/2017 was dismissed for want/absence of necessary party
4. Case No.145/2018 was filed again for redressal.
5. On perusal of related records available at this Hon’ble State Commission it appears that two complaints were filed at the District Level i) CC/165 of 2017  ii) CC/145 of 2018 under C.P Act, 1986. 
6. CC/165/2017 was dismissed on 03.12.2018 for want/ absence of necessary parties.  But it appears from the related records that CC/145/2018 has been filed on the self-same cause of action on 11.09.2018. 
7. The District Commission in its order dated 01.08.2019 allowed hearing the second case by rejecting the petition of the O.P at the District Level (Mobel India Pvt. Ltd.) that since self-same case was dismissed earlier by the same D.C.D.R.F, that matter cannot be heard at the District Level for the second time.Being aggrieved with this order dated 01.08.2019 of the Hon’ble D.C.D.R.F, in the mid-way of the trial the Revisionist Petitioner (Mobel India Pvt. Ltd), at Hon’ble State Commission (the O.Ps at the Hon’ble District Commission for CC/145/2018), moved this Revision Petition on 31.10.2019 at the State Level which is numbered RP/100/2019.

8. The prayer of the Revisionist Petitioner was to set aside that order dated 01.08.2019 passed by D.C.D.R.F, Murshidabad and to stay the proceeding of the second case (being No.CC/145/2018) at the District Level. 
9. This case has been contested at the State Level and both the parties to this case took part in this case up to the stage of exchanging the BNAs as per regulation.  Due to absence of the sole Respondent at the final hearing stage, it was heard ex-parte. 
10. On careful perusal of the BNA submitted by the Revisionist Petitioner it is learnt CC/165/2017 was dismissed on 03.01.2018 with the observation, “non-maintainable” for want of necessary party and that too without providing any liberty to the Complainant thereat to file the complaint afresh. 
11. The Complainant at the District Level, Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist Petitioner argued, did not prefer any appeal challenging that order and as such with the passage of time the said order attained its finality.   In similar situation it is the settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in its reported Judgment that :-

          i) “doctrine of res-judicata is applicable in Consumer Forum”;

               -2018(3) CPR 45 (NC).

         ii) Fresh complaint on same cause of action – not maintainable” -

              2018(3) ; Page 199 (NC).

12. In view of the above on careful perusal of the related documents of this case as also listening to the submission of Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist Petitioner and honouring the citation highlighted by the Revisionist Petitioner side, we hold and firmly hold that this Revision Petition succeeds.
13. Hence,

O R D E R E D

         That the Revision Petition being No.100/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest, but considering the circumstances, without any order as to costs.

       The Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Murshidabad is directed to proceed with the complaint proceeding being No.CC/145/2018 at his level in accordance with law keeping in mind the principles of res-judicata, as envisaged in the Section 11 of C.P.C, 1908.

          With this order, this Revision Petition is disposed of.

           Inform all concerned including the Present D.C.D.R.F, Murshidabad.

           Let free copy of this order be sent to all concerned.