SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The complaint case, in brief, is as follows :-

            The OP-1 Alchemist Township India Ltd. launch a deposit scheme to the public at large for investment against acquire of plot / villa / apartment at Park Avenue, Talwandi Bhai, Tehsil -Zeera, Dist. Firozpur, Punjab and one Kaushik Mondal and Debidas Mondal invested Rs.4,00,000/- to the OP-1 on 28/06/2013. The OP-1 issued certificate being No. TA00294816 dated 12/07/2013 in favour of Kaushik Mondal and Debidas Mondal and the period of allotment is for 43 months. The said Kaushik Mondal assigned / surrendered the afore said certificate dated 12/07/2013 to the complainant due to urgent need of money and affirmed an affidavit dated 06/01/2018 to that effect. The maturity date of the said certificate was 06/02/2017. On conclusion of the contract, the OPs did not take any positive step to complete the project. In spite of maturity the O.Ps did not refund the maturity amount. It is further alleged the OPs have adopted unfair trade practice towards discharging their duties and liabilities. The complainant has prayed for refund of the invested amount including other reliefs in terms of the consumer complaint.

            In spite of service of notices the OPs did not turn up to contest the case.  As such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the OPs.

Decision with Reasons

To establish his case the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit and also produced photocopies of certificate being No. TA00294816 dated 12/07/2013, assignment / surrender / transfer deed and affidavit duly affirmed before the Notary Public. On perusal of those documents, we find that one Kaushik Mondal and Debidas Mondal invested Rs.4,00,000/- to the O.P.-1  against certificate No. TA00294816 dated 12/07/2013 to acquire plot / villa / apartment at Park Avenue, Talwandi Bhai, Tehsil Zeera, Dist. Firozpur, Punjab and the tenure of certificate is 06/02/2017. It further appears to us that the said Kaushik Mondal transferred the aforesaid certificate in favour of the complainant after receiving the certificate amount by putting his signature thereon. The Buyer also put his signature in the surrender / transfer deed. Affidavit dated 06/01/2018 goes to show that the said Kaushik Mondal declared before the Notary Public that he assigned the certificate being No.TA00294816 dated 12/07/2013 to the complainant against payment of certificate value.  In spite of maturity the O.Ps did not refund the maturity value of the certificate to the complainant.

Section 11 of CPC aims to prevent multiplicity of the proceedings and accords finality to an issue, which directly and substantially had arisen in the former suit between the same parties or their privies, had been decided and became final, so that the parties are not vexed twice over. Vexatious litigation would be put an end to and the valuable time of the Court is saved. It is based on public policy as well as private justice. It applies to all judicial proceedings where Civil or otherwise. It equally applies to quasi judicial proceedings other than Civil Court.

The object and purpose of the principle of res judicata is to uphold the rule of conclusiveness of judgment, as to the points decided earlier of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. The principle envisages that a judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction directly upon a point would create a bar as regards a plea between the same parties. No man should be vexed twice over the same cause. There is a catena of decisions from the Supreme Court as well as from different High Courts where the object and the purpose of the principle of res judicata have been explained.

             The complainant also filed a consumer complaint being No.298 of 2018 against the above named O.Ps in respect of self same certificate being No.TA00294816 dated 12/07/2013 amounting Rs.4,00,000/- and such case was allowed ex-parte against the O.Ps. The points of the instant consumer complaint directly and subsequently had arisen in the former consumer complaint  being No. 298 of 2018  between the same parties and has been decided and became final. So the instant case is vexatious litigation Therefore, the instant complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the instant complaint is barred by res judicata.    In the result, the case merit is dismissal.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the O.Ps as barred by res judicata.