DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.579/2012

Shri Jai Gupta

S/o Major N. N. Gupta, VSM (Retd.)

15-C, MIG DDA Flats,

Seikh Sarai, Phase-I,

New Delhi-110017                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

1.      Superintendent

          Office of the District Judge No.IV,

          New Delhi District,

          Patiala House Courts,

New Delhi-110001

2.      The Branch Incharge/Superintendent

          Copy Branch

          Patiala House Courts,

New Delhi-110001                                        ….Opposite Parties

                                                Date of Institution        : 02.11.12       Date of Order      : 30.04.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

1. Relevant facts of the present case are that the complainant Jai Gupta aggrieved by the callous attitude of the Copy Agency Branch of Patiala House Courts (OP) approached this Forum. The complainant had applied for certified copies in respect of five criminal cases which were not supplied to him even after 10 consecutive dates given to him.
2. At the outset, it is observed that the complaint is not maintainable as similar complaint had been filed by the complainant previously which was dismissed in default. Instead of getting the same revived he instituted fresh proceedings. The previous complaint in this Forum was dismissed in default on 04.05.12. The copy of the order dated 04.05.12 is placed on record with an application filed by the OP. It is further noticed that the present complaint is filed on 02.11.12 nearly after six months of the dismissal of the first complaint and the present complaint has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation as the cause of action admittedly first arose on 05.02.10.
3. Therefore, without further adverting to the facts we are of the opinion that the complainant could have agitated for getting the order dated 04.05.12 set-aside from the competent Forum or could have sought other legal remedies available.  Filing the second complaint on the same facts and circumstances has not been provided anywhere as per the established legal provisions.
4. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Purusharath Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uppal Housing Ltd. & Anr. III (2012) CPJ 500 (NC) held as under:

“that the second complaint was not maintainable. In the said case, the party had withdrawn the previous complaint on the ground that the previous counsel was not competent. The Commission observed that if there was defect in the first complaint, amendment application should have been moved or permission could have been sought or request could have been made to have liberty to file fresh complaint.It was not possible to give permission to fill-up lacuna at this stage. It is very clear from the above facts that the orders passed by the Fora suffer from a major irregularity as they have dealt with the second complaint which was legally not maintainable. In view of these circumstances, there is no need to go into the other aspects of the case and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The petitioners have also taken-up this issue in the grounds of revision petition and also during the course of oral arguments. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted. The order passed by the State Commission and District Forum are set aside and the consumer complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

5. An application to this effect was made under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC read with section 151 of CPC; section 26 of CPA and Rule 48 wherein it is stated that the complainant had filed consumer complaint No.507/2010 before this Forum on the same cause of action. 
6.  Therefore the complaint is not maintainable on two counts. Firstly for filing a second complaint on same cause of action. Secondly, it is barred by limitation. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. Since the complaint has been dismissed on the grounds raised in the application, the application is also deemed to have been allowed. 

          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.

(Kiran Kaushal)                                                            (A.S. Yadav)

Member                                                                        President

Announced on 30.04.19.