KAILASH CHAND JAIN vs BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

-COMPLAINANT claiming to be the Managing Director of M/s. Saraogi Oxygen Ltd. has filed this complaint. There are five opposite parties. A sum of Rs. 4,65,53.626 is claimed as loss suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is alleged that the unit of the complainant was never supplied continuous and adequate power ever since its connection in 1988, with the result complainant suffered loss. There are various other allegations made in the complaint. The loss is claimed from September, 1988 till January, 1996. Out of the aforesaid amount a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakh is claimed on account of mental torture, agony, harassment, etc.

THIS complaint was filed on 2.4.2002. In the prayer there is also a submission that limitation in filing the complaint be condoned, from which it appears complainant had also approached Patna High Court in writ petition. That petition was filed in 1995. A direction was issued in that matter by order dated 8.11.1996 to the Electricity Board to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to dispose of the same by a reasoned order. The grievance of the petitioner was for direction to allow proportionate reduction in demand charges. That apart, we find that this complaint raises complex issues which cannot be decided in our summary jurisdiction. A great deal of evidence both documentary and oral will have to be led. In the case of Synoo Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur & Ors., I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC)=I (2002) SLT 214=(2002) 2 SCC 1, a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court observed as under: "Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of Rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of Rupees sixty lakh for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the appellant, it is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and, thereafter, to prove the damages and expenses. It is, therefore, in any event not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion. The National Commission was right in giving to the appellant liberty to move the Civil Court. THIS is an appropriate claim for a Civil Court to decide and, obviously, was not filed before a Civil Court to start with because, before the Consumer Forum, any figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay Court fees. THIS, in that sense, is an abuse of the process of the Consumer Forum."

In this view of the matter we reject this complaint. This rejection will, however, not be an impediment to the complainant in approaching Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum. It may also be noted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1995) 3 SCC 583, complainant can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit. Complaint dismissed.