STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                  REVISION NO. R/76/2017

           (Against the order dated 06-02-2017 in Complaint Case No.

               29/2017 of the District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow )

01.Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

     Electricity Urban Distribution Division

     Ganga Ganj, EUDD, Cess III

     Lucknow

     Through its Executive Engineer

02.Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Litd.

     Shakti Bhawan

     Through its Chairman

                                                                                   ...Revisionists

                                                     Vs.

 Dinesh Kumar Verma

 S/o Sri Bhagirath Verma

 R/o Ganga Ganj, Lucknow.

                                                                                   ...Opposite party

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

For the Revisionist                  :    Mr. Isar Husain, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party            :   

Dated :  30-10-2017

                                                  JUDGMENT

       MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL)

This is a revision petition filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 06-02-2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 29/2017 Dinesh Kumar Verma V/s Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and another whereby the District Consumer Forum has passed interim order under Section 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with direction to the opposite parties of the complaint now revisionists to restore electric connection of complainant who is opposite party in this revision.

Learned Counsel Mr. Isar Husain appeared for revisionists.

None appeared for opposite party inspite of sufficient service of notice.

I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and perused records.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionists that opposite

:2:

party had filed Complaint No. 386/2017 Dinesh Kumar Verma V/s Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and another and had moved application for interim relief under Section 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 therein but the District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow has rejected the application for interim relief vide order dated 20-12-2016 holding that the complainant is not a consumer defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the complaint is not maintainable. Thereafter the complainant has not pressed the complaint and the complaint has been dismissed vide order dated 28-01-2017. As such the second complaint on the same cause of action is not maintainable before District Consumer Forum.

            I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the revisionists.

            Perusal of records show that the opposite party has filed second complaint after dismissal of first complaint as not pressed. As such the District Consumer Forum should decide maintainability of second complaint before proceeding further.  

In view of above revision petition is allowed. The impugned interim order dated 06-02-2017 passed by District Consumer Forum is set aside and the District Consumer Forum is directed to decide maintainability of second complaint before proceeding further.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

          Pnt.