Delhi

East Delhi

CC/79/2015

VIRENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 79/2015

 

	Virendra Kumar Srivastava 1/10699 Subhash Park Naveen Shahdara, Gali No. 1&2, Delhi 110032	….Complainant
Versus
	M/s TATA Motors Ltd. Through its Director/Manager Gazipur, Patparganj, Delhi 110096	OP1

 

Date of Institution: 04.02.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 31.05.2022

Judgment Passed on: 01.06.2022

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member) – on leave

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra, President

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order I shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the complainant against OP/Tata Motors, inter-alia alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for demanding  parking charges despite the Orders of District Commission in the previous matter i.e. CC/288/2013.
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are, that he purchased one Tata ACE CNG Truck in the year 2011 bearing Registration No. DL1L R1526, which somehow met with an accident on 29.10.2012 for which police report was lodged with P.S. Sahibabad, UP vide FIR No. 272/2012 and vehicle was left with the OP at its workshop at Ghazpur, Patpatganj. The OP, thereafter, gave a performa invoice claiming expenses for an amount of Rs. 152386.96p which the complainant forwarded to his insurance company being the vehicle was covered under cashless policy and he was orally informed that amount would be reimbursed. However, Insurance Co. only paid Rs.69442/- and despite much pursuance Insurance Co. did not pay the amount and ultimately complainant filed the complaint before this Commission inter-alia praying to pass interim orders against the OP to deliver the vehicle bearing no. DL1LR 1526 to the complainant without any payment till the final disposal of the case, pay the complete claimed amount i.e. Rs.152380.96p with parking charges and other charges etc to the complainant, pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to complainant for mental, economical, physical, business loss etc. The Forum adjudicated the matter and passed order in the favour of complainant and insurance company was directed to reimburse additional amount of Rs. 23149/- alongwith interest @9% alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
3. The complainant, thereafter, visited the OP for getting the vehicle released but OP refused to return the truck and he claimed parking charges of the vehicle for 183 days @Rs.250/- per day amounting to Rs. 45750/-and balance of the reparing cost which was Rs.75939/-, the total amount of Rs.121689/- which was wholly illegal and with intention to cheat the complainant. Complainant served the notice to OP but he didn’t hand over the vehicle and ultimately the complainant filed the present complaint.
4. The OP was served and file its written statement taking preliminary objection inter-alia stating that the complainant had earlier filed the complaint no. 288/2013 against OP as well as the Insurance Company and Hon’ble District Forum vide order  dated 12.6.2014 adjudicated the matter and granted the relief to the complainant and now the 2^nd complaint for same cause of action is not maintainable and if the complainant had any grievance against the order/judgment dated 12.6.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Distt Forum he should have filed some appeal against the order but in any case he cannot re-agitate the same issue again. He has further stated that in the present complaint in para 1, complainant has made first prayer which read as follows-

“the opposite party to release the Tata vehicle i.e. Tata ACE CNG Truck bearing no. DL1LR 1526 to the complainant without getting any charges from the complainant”

 

However, in the earlier complaint bearing no. 288/2013, the prayer made in the said complaint read as under:

 

“Pass interim orders against the opposite parties to deliver the vehicle bearing no. DL1LR 1526 to complainant without any payment till the final disposal of the case”.

 

“Pass order against the opposite party No. 1 to pay the complete claimed amount i.e. Rs.1,52,380.96p with parking charges and other charges etc to the complainant.”

 

Thus, from the perusal of the both the prayers in the earlier complaint and the present complaint, it is apparent that reliefs w.r.t. parking charges is same, meaning thereby that the complainant wants to get the same relief adjudicated afresh, which already stands rejected by the Hon’ble Forum, vide order dated 12.6.2014 and as such the present complaint is not maintainable. Raising of the invoice for Rs.152380.96p earlier, granting the relief to complainant w.r.t. deficiency are stated to matter of record and it is submitted that the OP as per law has the lien over the vehicle in question until and unless its repair charges are paid either by complainant or insurer and he is also entitled for parking charges which fact was duly communicated to complainant and since there was no order passed by this Forum w.r.t. the parking charges in the earlier order dated 12.6.2014, the OP is within right to claim the parking charges and there is no deficiency in service as the relevant order part of the said order stated

“We allow the complaint. We direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay to the complainant the remaining balance amount of Rs.23149/- alongwith interest @9% thereof……. We further award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment….” Other facts are denied.

5. Rejoinder alongwith evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant wherein a copy of identity card of the complainant annexed as Exhibit CW1/1, copy of letter dated 30.6.2014 annexed as Exhibit CW1/2, copy of the notice and the speed post receipt dated 16.10.2014 annexed as Exhibit CW1/3 (colly).
6. OP also filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sharmendra Chaudhary, Deputy General Manager wherein all the facts has been reiterated.
7. I have heard the arguments and observed that it is a matter of record and it is not disputed that the complainant in the previous complaint claimed that OPs be directed to deliver the vehicle bearing no. DL1LR 1526 to the complainant without any payment till the final disposal.
   •  

Admittedly, this relief was not specifically granted by the Hon’ble Forum, and para 24 reads as

“We allow this complaint. We direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay to the complainant the remaining balance amount of Rs.23,149/- alongwith interest @9% thereon from the date of filing this complaint till it is finally paid. We further, award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain and agony which shall also include the cost of litigation.”

In the present complaint the complainant seeks same relief. Law is quite well settled i.e. if relief is claimed by any person in the pleadings which has not been granted, then the same issue cannot be reiterated subsequently in a fresh suit. This is also settled law if the complainant would not been having any satisfaction w.r.t. relief not specifically granted he either should have sought clarifications from Hon’ble Distt Forum or should have filed some appeal against the order which admittedly has not been done. The contention of counsel for OP, therefore, is well found that the present suit is barred u/s 11 of CPC r/w explanation-V which is being reproduced here as under :

Section 11 CPC:

Res judicata –  No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in  issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

Explanation I

Explanation II

Explanation III

Explanation IV

Explanation V - “Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purpose of this section, be deemed to have been refused.”

 Keeping in all facts and circumstances this Court has opinion that complainant not able to prove the maintainability of 2^nd complaint on same cause of action and as such the same is dismissed.

8. Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
9. File be consigned to Record Room.
10. Announced on 1.6.2022

DELHI

 

On leave (Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President