D.O.F:07/02/2023

                                                                                                              D.O.O:30/06/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.35/2023

Dated this, the 30^th day of June 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                           : MEMBER

P.Raghava Poduval, aged 76 years,

S/o late V.Ambu Poduval

‘Prasadam’, Kanam Road, Balla,                                :  Complainant

Balla village, P.O. Balla 671531

Hosdurg Taluk Kasaragod.

                                                And

1. The Sub Collector,

Hosdurg, Kanhangad.

2. The District Collector,                                                  : Opposite Parties
3. Kasaragod

3. The Village Officer

Balla Village, P.O Balla 671531

(Adv: Dist. Govt Pleader)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K    :PRESIDENT

               The complaint is filed by complainant claiming direction to Opposite party to issue possession certificate to complainant for 1.03 acres in R.S No. 251/1 of Balla village.  Cases as pleaded by complainant in short is that he is the owner of 1.03 acres aforesaid, in possession, paying taxes. But Opposite party not issued possession certificate.  He could not avail loan, suffered mental agony for which claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for deficiency in service and for a direction to Opposite party to issue possession certificate and cost of litigation.

          For Opposite party Government pleader appeared and filed a counter in denying allegation.  Opposite party submitted that complainant filed a case 207/2021 before the CDRC for the issuance of possession.  CC 207/2021 is allowed in part therefore second complaint for the very same relief is hit by the principal of resjudicate.  Government officers are discharging there official dates, therefore complaint is to be dismissed.

          The following points arise for consideration in the case:

1. Whether second complaint for the very same relief is maintainable as per Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service rendered by Opposite party? Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what is the relief?

The fact remains that the complainant has already filed a complaint CC-207/2021, it was allowed in part as per order dated 15/12/2022.  Then the complainant has filed RA 2/2023 for review of order saying that compensation awarded is very low and seeking enhancement of compensation.  The complainant filed a statement dated 26/05/2023 in which he stated that State Consumer Redressal Commission by its order dated 10/04/2023 in appeal No: 130/2023 up held the order in CC 207/2021.  The complaint which is rejecting by the commission holding that the second complaint is not maintainable at law.

Considering the facts of filing cases, one after the other even after getting a relief in favour of the complainant praying for enhancement of compensation by filing a review petition thereby proceeding with complainants and petitioners without any legal grounds is really frivolous and vexations and deserved to be deprecated.

     There is no merit for consideration in view of the disposal of the earlier cases and this case is not bonefide and is thus liable to rejected.

     In the result complaint is rejected as not maintainable.

    Sd/-                                                                                                Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

Ps/                                                                   Assistant Registrar