BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 67/11.
THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Ladle Sab S/o. Maheboob Ali Sab, H.No. 5-
62/2B-5 R/o. Kowtal, Post: Kowtal, Tq. Manvi, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENT :- Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., station Rod, Raichur.
Date of institution :- 22-09-11.
Date of notice :- 22-09-11.
Date of disposal :- 16-12-11.
Complainant represented by In person.
Respondent represented by Sri. A.S. Habib, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire materials placed on record by the parties passed the following.
ORDER ON THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THIS COMPLAINT.
This complaint is filed by the complainant Ladlesab against opposite Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Raichur in pursuance of the written instructions given to him by the Hon’ble State Commission vide its letter dt. 24-08-2011.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case in this complaint are that, he purchased tractor bearing No. KA-36 T 7867 with financial assistance of opposite Finance Company Ltd., He paid five installments towards loan, he is due to pay the amount of five installments, opposites Finance Company Ltd., brought the driver took the tractor and trailer and parked it in its go-down. Later on, he approached opposite Insurance Company Ltd., with entire due amount with interest but it not entertained him. Thereafter he came to know from the watchman of the go-down, that the said tractor met with an accident and it was not in moving condition, thereafter also, he requested the Branch manager to release the tractor but he threatened him to impose heavy interest, as such he prayed for to direct the opposite to release the vehicle to his custody as he is ready to pay entire due amount with interest.
2. Opposite Finance Company Ltd., appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed written version with main contention that, this complainant Ladlesab had filed complaint bearing No. 100/2010 earlier to this complaint against same opposite Finance Company Ltd., with same allegations as alleged in this present complaint with same reliefs as prayed in their complaint. That complaint was decided on its merits vide judgment dt. 29-04-11 by dismissing the said complaint, thereafter the complainant not preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order of this Forum. Hence the judgment and order of this Forum in CC.No. 100/2010 attained its finality. This fact was intentionally suppressed by the complainant in this complaint. Hence the present complaint is second complaint on the same subject matter between the same parties with same allegations and on similar releifs. Hence this complaint not maintainable, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the present complaint.
3. In view of the contentions and Rival contentions of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the present complaint is maintainable in view of the dismissal of earlier complaint bearing CC No. 100/2010 on the file of this Forum vide judgment dt. 29-04-11.
2. What order.
4. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
1) The present second complaint is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of earlier complaint bearing CC.No. 100/2010 vide its judgment 29-04-11 by this Forum.
2) In view of our finding on Point NO-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
5. In the light of the contentions taken by the opposite Finance Company Ltd., and in view of the submissions made, we have referred the earlier case bearing CC.No. 100/2010. It was a complaint filed by the present complainant Ladlesab against Branch Manager Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Raichur for certain reliefs. Opposite Finance Company appeared in that case. Affidavit-evidence of both parties filed along with their respective documents and the said complaint was dismissed on merits vide judgment and order dt. 29-04-11.
6. On verification of the records of this Forum, we have not received any appeal intimation till this date and it also appears that, this complainant has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order of this Forum dt. 29-04-11 in CC.No. 100/2010.
7. This fact is not revealed in his present complaint filed him before the Hon’ble State Commission, as such the Hon’ble State Commission directed the complainant vide its letter dt. 24-08-2011 to approach this District Forum, accordingly he filed this present complaint.
8. We have gone through the contents of this complaint with the contents of complaint in CC.No. 100/2010 and noticed that, the present complainant Ladlesab was the complainant in CC.No. 100/2010. The present opposite company was also an opposite in CC.No. 100/2010. The allegations made in the present complaint are similar to the allegations made in CC.No. 100/2010. The reliefs are also similar in both the complaints. In view of such facts and circumstances of this complaint, we are of the view that, the present complainant intentionally not disclosed the dismissal of his earlier complaint in CC.No. 100/2010 before the Hon’ble State Commission as well as before this Forum till appearance of opposite in this case. The said attitude of the complainant made this Forum to register this complaint and issued notice to opposite. The complainant came once again before this Forum without preferring an appeal against the judgment and order in CC.No. 100/2010 and without disclosing the result in CC.No. 100/2010, as such we are of the view that, it is an abuse of process of law by this complainant. Hence this kind of attitude is required to be curbed, accordingly we came to conclusion that, this complaint is not maintainable and it is liable for dismissal, accordingly it is dismissed and directed to the complainant to pay cost of Rs. 1000/- to the opposite and Rs. 1000/- to be Forum’s Account and thereby we answered Point No-1 accordingly.
POINT NO.2:-
9. In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable.
The complainant is directed to pay cost of Rs. 1000/- to opposite and he shall pay another 1000/- Rs. to the Account of this Forum.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 16-12-11)
Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur.
