RANBIR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB TRACTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the limited purpose of this order disposing of the preliminary jurisdictional objections, it is unnecessary to delve deeply into the facts and the merits of the case.

(2.) It suffices to mention that the complainant had made a primal grievance about the allegedly defective Swaraj Tractor supplied to him by the opposite parties. Total claim of Rs.9,50,000/- is sought as damages and compensation. In the reply filed on behalf of the opposite party No. l as many as 13 purported preliminary submissions have been stated. However, the only one pressed by Shri Pradeep Kumar is ground No.3 thereof. It has been averred therein that the complainant on the 17th of July, 1992 had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Kurukshetra for the identica1 cause of action and therein he had claimed a compensation of Rs.15.5 lacs. Notice was issued to the opposite parties and they raised objections thereto under Sec.11 (1) of the Act and the District Forum disposed of the same by its order dated the 16th of September, 1992 on the ground that the relief therein was in excess of rupees One lac.

(3.) Against the aforesaid factual background, the primal submission of Mr. Pardeep Kumar first was that the complaint for the identical cause of action having already been disposed of by the District Forum, the present complaint was virtually a transfer of the same therefrom to the Commission. It was submitted that the Act and the rules make no provision or any transfer from one redressal agency to another and therefore, the present proceedings cannot be treated as a original complaint. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Rajasthan State Commission in 'girraj Prasad Tikkiwal V/s. Ram Deo Saini and Others., 1991 2 CPJ 335 The aforesaid submission though, it brings some credit to the ingenuity of Mr. Pardeep Kumar does not in our view appear to be tenable. A reference to the order of the District Forum, Kurukshetra dated the 16th of September, 1992 would show that some was in no way a dismissal or final adjudication of the complaint. This is manifest from the operative part of the said order, which is as under: " In view of the same, this complaint is held to be beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum and is disposed of as such. The complainant may file a complaint before the Hon'ble Commission having jurisdiction to do so, if so advised. "