PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Surinder Malhotra

JD 1. THIS is an appeal against the order dated 16.1.2001 of the District Forum, Ludhiana by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed in the following terms: ''Accordingly, the demand in respect to Rs. 62,944.20 is quashed and the opposite party is directed to refund the amount deposited against the said demand along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The compliance shall be done within one month of the receipt of this order.''

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Admittedly, respondent -complainant had taken resort to another remedy of approaching the Disputes Settlement Committee constituted by the PSEB. The decision of the Disputes Settlement Committee was given against the complainant on 27.8.1999. The decision has been produced before us which is ordered to be placed on record as Annexure A. This Commission recently considered a similar matter in Appeal No. 1049 of 2000 titled as PSEB v. M/s Anand Finishers, decided on 18.8.2005 where we had accepted the appeal of PSEB holding that in such circumstances, the complaint before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. There may be two remedies or even more than two available to a person to raise his grievance. Having chosen one remedy, the consumer cannot resort to the other remedy. He must pursue to the remedy already taken to its logical end. According to us, the case is fully covered in favour of the Electricity Board vide our aforesaid judgment. Consequently, we hold that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum under the circumstances of the case.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent -complainant submitted that a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Punjab State Electricity Board, reported as 2004 (1) RCJ 626 held that the remedy of alternative dispute mechanism under the regulations is not statutory remedy and is neither adequate nor efficacious. By virtue of such regulations, the jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 9, CPC cannot be barred. This judgment of the Honble High Court has been considered by this Commission in Appeal No. 525A of 2001 titled as PSEB v. Sanjeev Kumar and Another, decided on 22.8.2005 where we had observed that this judgment was given on a point raised whether the Civil Court jurisdiction is barred in view of the remedies provided by the PSEB. Answer given was that Civil Court jurisdiction is not barred. The authority cited does not hold that a person cannot avail the remedies provided by the PSEB. If a Civil Suit is filed or even if a complaint is filed under the Consumer Protection Act, the PSEB cannot non -suit the plaintiff or complainant by saying that he must approach the authorities constituted by the PSEB to get his grievance redressed. However, once the complainant chooses to avail the remedy provided by the PSEB to get his grievance redressed, then under these circumstances, he cannot approach the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. However, this will not debar the complainant to pursue his further remedy before the Appellate Authority of the PSEB and if any such appeal is filed, that would be decided on merits and PSEB will not raise the objection of limitation as the complainant has been pursuing his complaint before the District Forum which was decided in his favour and it is only in the appeal that the same has been dismissed as not maintainable. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Appeal allowed. -