R RAJAMANNAR Vs. R THIAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is posted for admission and the learned Counsel for the complainant is heard.

(2.) The complainant is the owner of some property not specifically described in the complaint which is said to have been taken over by the third opposite party, Corporation of Madras. The compensation sum of Rs.6,00,000/- is alleged to have been received by opposite parties 1 and 2 on behalf of the complainant as lawyers. The complainant filed a similar complaint against these opposite parties in O. P.152/ 94 and it was dismissed by this Commission. Hence a fresh complaint is now filed alleging that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are advocates of the complainants and for refund of the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with compensation.

(3.) The third opposite party is the Corporation of Madras which is said to have taken possession of the complainant land and paid compensation presumably under the Land Acquisition Act. The complainant has not hired or availed of the services of the Corporation in respect of the acquisition of this land. The complaint against the Corporation must, therefore, fail. Opposite party 1 and 2 are said to be the advocates of the complainant and it is alleged that they have received compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. In O. P.152/94 the same allegation was made against the opposite parties 1 and 2 but they were not described as advocates in the body of the complaint. But in the return made by the Counsel for the complainant to the querry made by this office in O. P.152 of 94 it was mentioned that the opposite parties 1 and 2 were advocates. But then the complainant did not choose to amend the complaint and allege that they have received the amount as advocates for the complainant. That complaint was therefore, dismissed on the ground that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer as regards opposite parties 1 and 2 also. The complainant has come forward with the new complaint alleging that O. Ps.1 and 2 were their Advocates. This allegation ought to have been made in the earlier complaint atleast by amending the claim after the office raised the question maintainability. She did not choose to do so. She is not therefore entitled to come forward with a fresh complaint against the same parties on the same cause of action and for the same reliefs. The complaint has, therefore, to failed.