SMT.KAVITA MANKHOLA Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the Complainant, is to the order dated 15.06.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 428 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while affirming the order dated 19.03.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ­ III, Jaipur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 54 of 2012 (Old Case No.786 of 2010), has come to the conclusion that the said Complaint was not maintainable because another Complaint, being No. 541 of 2009, on the same cause of action, had already been allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 19.03.2015 and relief on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short "the Housing Board") had been granted to the Complainant. There is no dispute that the said order, awarding compensation on account of proved deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board in not delivering the possession of the house in question on time, has attained finality, though the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum stands reduced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

(2.) The controversy, occasioning the filing of the second Complaint, giving rise to the present Revision Petition, arose thus:

(3.) During the pendency of the Complaint, the Housing Board filed an Application before the District Forum, praying for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the second Complaint on the same cause of action was not maintainable. Before adjudicating on the merits of the Complaint, the District Forum considered the said objection in its final order dated 19.03.2015, wherein it came to the conclusion that the second Complaint was different from the facts mentioned in the first Complaint, inasmuch as the relief claimed in the two Complaints were entirely different. Accordingly, the said Application was dismissed. Nevertheless, the District Forum came to the conclusion that since adequate relief had already been granted to the Complainant in the first Complaint, no further relief deserved to be granted in the second Complaint. Resultantly, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint.