BALBIR CHAND vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

-THIS revision by the complainant is directed against the order dated 24. 11. 2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 14. 6. 2006 of a District Forum whereby complaint was dismissed.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner who was provided electric connection, was issued demand notice for a sum of Rs. 13,948 on ground of theft of energy by the respondent/ opposite party- Board. On demand being challenged by the petitioner before the. Dispute Settlement Committee, the Committee reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 9,798 by the order dated 25. 3. 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint on same cause of action before the District Forum, Ferozpur which was contested by the respondent. After remand, complaint was dismissed by the District Forum by the order dated 23. 7. 2003 on the ground of petitioner already having availed of remedy before the Dispute Settlement Committee. Order dated 23. 7. 2003 was not challenged by filing appeal before the State Commission by the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner filed appeal against the said order of Dispute Settlement Committee before the Zonal Level Committee set up by the respondent Board. By the order dated 27. 8. 2003, the Zonal Level Committee dismissed the appeal on the ground of the petitioner''s complaint having been dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 23. 7. 2003. Dis-satisfied with that order the petitioner filed a Civil Revision before the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh which was dismissed vide order dated 4. 9. 2003. Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3868 of 2004 which on contest was disposed of in following terms by the High Court on 2. 2. 2006: "we relegate the petitioner to his remedy before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Disposed of with the above observations. " On the strength of this order, the petitioner filed second complaint before the District Forum which was dismissed by aforesaid order dated 14. 6. 2006 on grounds of its being not maintainable in view of the petitioner already having availed of the remedy before the Dispute Settlement Committee and previous complaint having been dismissed on 23. 7. 2003. Appeal against Forum''s order was also dismissed by the State Commission.

Thrust of argument advanced by Mr. Bankey Behari Sharma for the petitioner is that the District Forum ought to have decided the complaint filed by the petitioner pursuant to the High Court''s order dated 2. 2. 2006 on merits and the State Commission fell in error in maintaining the order of the District Forum. On the other hand, it is argued by Mr. S. S. Gulati for the respondent- Board that second complaint was to be decided in accordance with law and the District Forum had rightly dismissed the complaint as not being maintainable. In support of the submission, reliance is placed on the decisions in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. All India I. T. D. C. Employees Union and Ors. , IV (2006) SLT 223= (2006) 4 SCC 257 and A. P. S. R. T. C. and Ors. v. G. Srinivas Reddy and Ors. , (2006) 3 SCC 674.

ADMITTEDLY, against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 13,948 by the respondent Board on ground of theft of electricity, the petitioner had approached the Dispute Settlement Committee and dis-satisfied by the order of Dispute Settlement Committee reducing the penalty amount to Rs. 9,798 the petitioner had filed complaint before the District Forum which was dismissed by the order dated 23. 7. 2003; and against which no appeal was filed by him. Considering the ratio of said two decisions of the Apex Court, we are of the view that second complaint filed after the High Court''s order dated 2. 2. 2006 was to be decided by the District Forum in accordance with law and it could not have ignored the orders of Dispute Settlement Committee and the Forum dated 23. 7. 2003. Complaint and the appeal had, thus, been rightly dismissed by the Fora below. Revision petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.