Delhi

StateCommission

CC/639/2015

SMT. ANITA GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Date of Arguments:  28.11.17

          Date of Decision:      06.12.17

Complaint No. 639/2015

In the matter of:

Smt. Anita Goyal

w/o Shri S.K.Goyal

R/o House No.19, Road No. 10

East Punjabi Bagh

New Delhi-110026.                                                                                        ……Complainant                                            

                                                                        Versus

 

T.D.I.Infrastructure Ltd.,

UG Floor, Vandana Building

11-Tosltoy Marg, Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001.

Through its Managing Director

Shri Ravinder Taneja                                                                                                                      ……Respondent

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGEMENT

          This order will dispose of application u/s 26 moved by OP for dismissing complaint on the plea that complainant had already filed complaint No. 147/12 which is pending in District Forum VI, Vikas Bhawan, ITO, New Delhi,  the next date in the said case was 16.01.17.  The same was filed on 13.02.12 before the filing of the present complaint.

2.       Complainant filed a reply stating that in the present complaint she has sought relief of possession of plot No. I-54 at Kundli, District Sonepat, Haryana, interest @ 18% per annum on the deposited amount, refund of excess amount of Rs. 52,115/- and compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-.  In the previous  complaint the complainant had sought withdrawal of letter dated 20.10.10.  Withdrawal of demand of Rs. 11,030/- towards transfer charges demanded verbally by the OP and to transfer plot in question in the name of complainant.  Besides interest @ 21% has been claimed.

2.       We have gone through the material on record and heard arguments.  Order 2 rule 2 CPC bars second suit. It is based on the doctrine that one cannot be waxed twice.  In case the relief claimed in the second suit was available to the complainant on the date of the filing of previous suit, the second suit does not lie.

3.       The counsel for complainant tried to make out that relief claimed in two complaints is different.  In her first complaint she wanted transfer of plot in the name of complainant which refers to title and not possession.  In the second complaint the complainant wants possession.

4.       Counsel for the complainant relied upon decision in Sat Bhan Singh vs. Mahipat Singh ILR (2012) 6 Delhi 262.In the said case suit for partition was held to be maintainable after suit for injunction.  It was held that cause of action for two suits was different.  Injunction could be claimed on the basis of threat given by defendant.

5.       Facts of the said case are totally different.  In the instant case the complainant could seek relief of possession also in the first complaint.

6.       We may add that transfer of title sought in the previous complaint includes transfer of possession.  Title is not complete till the possession is handed over, so long as the possession is not with third party.

7.       The present complaint is barred by order Rule 2 (2) CPC.  The application of the OP is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

( ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                          (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL)