Today is fixed for hearing as to the point of maintainability of the case.

The fact of the case is that the complainant Nandan Yadav filed a petition u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act before this Forum which is registered as complaint case No.35/17 on the ground of deficiency of service and negligence in duty.

The petition was contested by the O.Ps W.B.S.E.D.C.L by filing W.V.

The main point of the objection is that the petitioner Nandan Yadav has no locus stand i to file this case as because his wife Sita Yadav is also a consumer of the O.P and the case has been filed by Nandan Yadav. Whereas from the petition it is found that the case relates to in respect of two service connection one stand in the name of Nandan Yadav and another stand in the name of Sita Yadav. Moreover, the further objection of the O.Ps is that a case u/s.135 of Electricity Act is pending against the petitioner and his wife and this court has no jurisdiction to try this case. As such the petition is to be rejected.

Hd. Both sides.

The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted the Xerox copy of the bills. By that submission of such bills the Ld. Lawyer wants to impress upon the Forum that the bill is excessive and so this court has no jurisdiction to try this matter .But whether the bill is correct or not. There is a procedure under Electricity Act to prefer an appeal before the department. So the argument raise by the Ld. Lawyer for the petitioner is not maintainable.

Next point is to be considered whether this case is maintainable. This case has been filed by only Nandan Yadav in respect of two service connection. So, a person who is not a consumer of another service connection, he cannot filed the case on behalf of other. In this regard this case is also not maintainable. Moreover when a Crl. Case is pending as is found from the Xerox copy and FIR filed by the O.Ps, so in this case this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this matter and no court can take cognizance in this regard. Only the Special court constituted under the provision of Indian Electricity Act can look into the matter. So, considering the facts and circumstances it is found that the instant case is not maintainable, as such the instant case is

dismissed.

Court fee paid is correct.

Hence, it is

                                        O R D E R E D

That the complaint case being No.35/17 be and the same is dismissed as non maintainable on contest but without any cost.