L.R. GUPTA And CO. vs Telecom District Manager

THIS appeal is concluded against the appellant by the considered decision of this Commission in I (1992) CPJ 334, Gurcharan Singh of Barara v. Shashi Bhushan of Barara & Ors. It, therefore, suffices to notice the facts and the merits in their barest outline.

THE appellants had instituted the complaint before the District Forum on the 1st of April, 1992. It is unnecessary to advert to the facts because on notice being issued to the respondent a threshold preliminary objection was raised on the ground that the earlier complaint No. 216 of 1990 by the appellant in connection with the same telephone and with the same grievance was dismissed in default. A replication was filed on behalf of the appellants wherein this fact was not disputed. THE District Forum upheld the preliminary objection in view of the ratio in Gurcharan Singh of Barara v. Shashi Bhushan of Barara & Ors. (supra). Mr. Ajay Singhal, the learned Advocate for the appellant faced with the uphill task of a binding precedent to the contrary was somewhat half-hearted in his submissions. It was sought to be argued that the appellants had first sought restoration of the complaint but were later advised to file a fresh complaint which has now been non-suited on a legal ground.

It is somewhat elementary that the only ground sought to be raised in extenuation cannot possibly bye-pass the ratio of the aforesaid case. Since both before the District Forum and so before us, it is not in dispute that the earlier complaint on the identical cause of action was dismissed, it necessarily follows that a second complaint would not be maintainable. The issue was examined some- what in depth in Gurcharan Singh of Barara v. Shashi Bhushan of Barara & Ors. (supra), and it was equally observed as under:- "In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the affirmative. It is held that though the letter of Order 9 Rule 9 is not in strictitude applicable yet the spirit and the rationale behind it is attracted in an identical situation to the consumer disputes as well."

IN view of the aforesaid ration, it is manifest that the view taken by the District Forum was impecable and is beyond the pale of challenge. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, we would not wish to burden the appellants-consumer with any costs. Appeal dismissed.