G P GLASS CO Vs. VINOD SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, who was complainant before the District Forum, placed an order with the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party, for the supply of piece of glass 4' x 6' of 10 mm. thickness and paid advance of Rs.3,000/-. The glass was to be supplied within 15 days. On the same day, the complainant also placed an order or two pieces of glass sheet for which he paid a sum of Rs.4,237/-. The delivery was to be made within 2-3 days. Opposite party issued two receipts with regard to payment of advance with regard to one piece and advance payment with regard to two of other pieces. The opposite party delivered two pieces for which he had already received the payment. The pieces of glass supplied, had manufacturing defect with regard to its transpirency and also scratches. The complainant paid a number of visits and one employee named Mr. Anand of the opposite party visited the house of the complainant after a month or so and conceeded the aforesaid defects. Further case of the complainant was that inspite of numerous visits the opposite party failed to supply the third piece against which he had received advance payment of Rs.3,000/-.

(2.) The complaint was contested. On a consideration of the material before it District Forum-I held that as a gesture of goodwill the opposite party had agreed to replace the two pieces which, according to the complainant, were defective. In view of the offer, it was directed that the opposite party would replace the said two pieces of glass. The third piece for which the opposite party had received Rs.3,000/- in advance, had not been supplied and the opposite party was, therefore, directed to refund the sum of Rs.3,000/- with interest @ 18% p. a. w. e. f 5.11.1992 till date of repayment with Rs.250/-as costs of litigation and Rs.1,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The first ground mentioned in the appeal is that the present complaint was barred on the principle of res-judicata. The complainant had stated in the complaint itself that he had filed a complaint earlier which was registered as Case No.93 of 1993 on 14.1.1993. Copy of the complaint was annexed as Annexure 1 with the complaint. It was stated that on going through the complaint the District Forum observed on 17.6.1993 that the relief sought had not been stated. It was in these circumstances that the present complaint with specific relief was filed by way of better statement of the case. No final order disposing of the earlier complaint has been placed on record. From the aforesaid facts, the earlier Complaint No.93 of 1993 cannot operate as res-judicata.