DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.283/2013
Sh. Ravinder Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Dutt Verma
19/11, MCD Colony Model Town III
Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
1. State Bank of Patiala
Through its Assistant General Manager
Regional Office No.1
Pragati Vihar, NBCC Place
Bhisham Pitamah Marg
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. The Manager
State Bank of Patiala
B-56, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase No.1, New Delhi ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 10.05.13 Date of Order : 16.04.19
Coram:
Sh. A.S. Yadav, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Kiran Kaushal
Complainant seeks the following reliefs from this Forum:
-
-
Relief No.1 has been specifically denied in the order dated 22.05.12 by Hon’ble National Commission. For ready reference relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:
“Petitioner has further contended that a sum of Rs.1,83,425/- being Respondent/ Bank’s contribution to the Provident Fund has not been paid to him. No document or evidence has been produced by the Petitioner that this amount has been withheld by the Respondent/Bank and we therefore are unable to accept this claim.”
Aggrieved by the order of Hon’ble National Commission the complainant instead of challenging the said order or seeking any other remedy available under the law, started the process from the beginning again by way of the present complaint.
Succinctly put, the complainant approached this Forum on 27.01.06 stating that OP being the employer had withheld the Superannuation benefits particularly Provident Fund benefits of the complainant. It was noticed that the complainant was found involved in irregularities in certain deposit accounts by way of fraud and was put under suspension. Consequently after departmental enquiry the complainant was removed from service vide order dated 22.01.01 under clause 21(iv) (b) of Bipartite Settlement dated 14.02.1995. District Forum after adjudicating gave the following relief to the complainant:
- To pay a sum of Rs.62,414.45 (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Four Hundred Fourteen and Paisa Forty Five Only) to the Complainant within 60 days of this order.
This order was upheld by the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission.
Despite the Hon’ble National Commission rejecting the claim of the complainant on the grounds that no document or evidence was produced by the complainant that Rs.1,83,425/- has been withheld by OP, he has yet again failed to place any evidence regarding the same. However without going into the merits of the case afresh, this Forum is the opinion that the litigation has to end somewhere. To put an end to continue litigation after loosing the first round, the principles of Res- judicata has been incorporated in C.P.C. The complainant having been denied the relief by Hon’ble National Commission cannot pursue the same relief against same parties in second round of litigation. The complaint is thus hit by doctrine of Res-judicata as provided in section 11 of C.P.C. and accordingly is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 16.04.19.
