Father of the petitioner had taken a electricity connection for tubewell.  After his death, petitioner was using the said connection.  Vigilance staff of the respondent Nigam raided the premises of the petitioner and found that the petitioner was running a Atta Chakki by installing a 5 BHP motor on the aforesaid tubewell connection.  Petitioner was served with a bill to pay a sum of Rs.42,188/- in which Rs.253/- were towards the consumption of electricity and Rs.41,019/- by way of penalty. 

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a civil suit, which was dismissed.  Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. 

District Forum, vide its order dated 20.3.2003 disposed of the complaint by directing the respondent to reduce the penalty to Rs.12,955/-, aggrieved against which, respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and held that the District Forum had committed an error in accepting the complaint despite the fact that the civil suit filed by the petitioner had already been dismissed.

The vigilance staff of the respondent found that the petitioner was running Atta Chakki on a connection for running the tubewell.  There is a difference between agricultural tariff and commercial tariff.  Agricultural tariff is much less than the commercial tariff.  It was a clear case of theft of energy.  Respondent Nigam had imposed penalty of Rs.41,019/-, which was reduced by the District Forum to Rs.12,955/- meaning thereby that the District Forum also accepted that the petitioner was running Atta Chakki and using the agricultural connection to carry out commercial activity.  Otherwise also, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the fora under the Consumer Protection Act would not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in a case in which the civil court has already adjudicated.  Dismissed.