THE KERALA STATE  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD,  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

REVISION PETITION –NO- 51/2015

ORDER DATED. 05/10/2017

(Filed against the order in CC.No. 195/2015,CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

SRI. V.V.JOSE      : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Sasidharan represented by his wife

Smt. Sudha, ESS &  ESS Auto Services,

Medayil Veedu, Opposite of Indian Oil

Petrol Pump, Ulloor Medical College P.O,

Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. Neyyattinkara N. Mohanachandran)

          V/S

REVISION COUNTER PETITIONER:

          The Managing Director,

          Kerala Water  Authority,

          Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram

          And two others

         (2)

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT  

        Challenge in   the revision is  against the  Order passed by the District Forum, Thiruvananthapuram,  declining  to  receive a  complaint     presented by revision petitioner/ complainant.

        2. Subject matter  involved  in the present complaint was covered by  a   previous   complaint  of  the revision petitioner which was disposed on merits by the  forum and that was affirmed by State  Commission  with  some modifications,  was the view taken by the forum for  not admitting the complaint.

        3. Notice was given to the respondents,   but,  after service,  they have not entered appearance.   We heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner  and also  perused  the records.

                                                        (3)

After going through the orders passed on the previous complaint  of revision petitioner and also judgment of  this Commission against that  Order we notice that the respondent   had been  directed  to pay compensation  with  some directions to issue  a revised   bill .  The  present  complaint  was filed  when  an application moved by revision petitioner for execution   of previous order was  pending for realization of  compensation and cost ordered by  forum on   modified in appeal by  the  Commission.

        4. Complainant was filed before disposal of the EA  and that  subject  matter of   previous complaint    and the present    complaint is  the same,  was the view  of the forum for not admitting the complaint.  As against  the revised  bill issued  after  the  Orders of forum ,    if there  is sustainable challenge 

                                                    (4)

in law  or   fact     complainant has a  further   cause of action.    Has execution application  pertaining to realization of some  amount  ordered in the previous complaint was pending  will not  bar him in filing a   fresh complaint  if he has  right to do so .  Whether  he has got a  cause on merits is a different matter,  but, to  dismiss  a  complaint at   threshold  holding  that the subject matter is already covered by previous complaint  on facts presented  appears to be not correct.  The question is whether  he has prima facie,  a    fresh cause of action on revised   bill issued.  Order   passed  by the forum cannot be sustained  and it  is  set aside.   The forum  below is directed to   take back the

                                                        (5)

complaint on  file and dispose  it in  accordance  with law. 

JUSTICE  S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

V.V.JOSE                                                      : MEMBER

Sh/-

.