NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/471/2009

M/S. SAINI RICE & GENERAL MILLS & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MS. S.B. KHAN

08 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIFIRST APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 25/09/2009 in Complaint No. 16/2008 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. M/S. SAINI RICE & GENERAL MILLS & ANR.Through Shiv Saran Dass Saini its Partner, Shamdoo/Chandigarh Road, Near Amrit Banaspati Company RajpuraPunjab ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.Through its Chairman, The MallPatialaPunjab2. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDSecretary, The MallPunjab3. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDExecutive EngineerRajpuraPunjab4. PSEB SUB URBAN DIVISIONSub Divisional Officer, Focal PointRajpuraPunjab ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 08 Jan 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Aggrieved by dismissal of its complaint no. 16/08 by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) vide order dated 25.09.09, the complainant has filed the present appeal. The complaint filed by the appellant was a second complaint claiming compensation for certain losses allegedly suffered by it on account of alleged illegal and unauthorized dis-connection of the electricity to its rice mill and thereafter delay in ..2.. restoration of the said connection. The complainant had earlier filed a complaint no. 31/02 based on the same cause of action with various reliefs. The said complaint was partly allowed by the State Commission vide order dated 20.02.06. Aggrieved by the same, the Punjab State Electricity Board filed an appeal in this Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 09.08.07. The complainant took out the execution of the order dated 20.02.06 passed in original complaint no. 31/02 and the order of the State Commission was duly enforced. Afterwards, the present complaint was filed seeking a total compensation of Rs.37,23,213.70 under various heads. The State Commission taking note of the earlier proceedings in the complaint as also in the execution proceedings, has dismissed the said complaint primarily on the ground that it was barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The State Commission has given cogent reasons as to why the second/subsequent complaint after the disposal of the complaint no.31/02, was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the State Commission has erred in relying upon the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC because the proceedings before the consumer fora are not in the nature of a civil suit and, in any case, the cause of action for ..3. filing the second complaint had arisen subsequent to the decision on the earlier complaint entitling the complainant to further relief as claimed in complaint no. 16/08. We have given our anxious consideration to his submission but we are not persuaded to accept the same for the reason that even in the earlier complaint no. 31/02, the complainant had claimed a compensation of Rs.5 lakh besides compensation on some other accounts for the alleged illegal disconnection of electricity to its rice mill and consequent loss of income. The State Commission has considered the said prayer while disposing of the earlier complaint and expressly held that no compensation was payable to the complainant. The complainant did not challenge the said verdict of the State Commission rather it was challenged by the Punjab State Electricity Board though without success. In our view, the cause of action in both the complaints was one and the same and the complainant had claimed the same relief in the earlier compliant which it had sought in the present complaint though the amount of compensation has been enhanced. We are of view that the filing of the second/subsequent complaint based on the same cause of action which had already been adjudicated upon, is clearly barred by the principle of natural justice even if not strictly by ..4.. the principles of law. The State Commission was, therefore, fully justified in dismissing the complaint. Morevoer, the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 37 days. Even if we condone the said delay, we do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed in limine with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the “Consumer Legal Aid A/c”, NCDRC within a period of four weeks.