Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Presiding Judicial Member.

(1)          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 05/05/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint No.97/2006, Dr.Sou. Vatsala Rajan Vaidya V/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane, (in short ‘Forum below’). 

(2)          Consumer complaint was filed by Respondent/Original Complainant alleging that bill for the domestic consumption of Rs.1,29,465/-  is excessive and arbitrarily given and therefore, claimed relief to issue proper bill.  Forum below accepting the contention and cancelling the bill directed Appellant/Original Opposite Party to issue fresh bill on the basis of average consumption from 11/09/2004 to August, 2005, awarded Rs.10,000/-  as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by original Opposite Party.

(3)          Heard Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr.Nishignadh Patil, Advocate for the Respondent.

(4)          Referring to the complaint which was so filed on 01.03.2006, it could be seen that Respondent/Original Complainant suppressed material fact about initially electing to take the dispute with Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kalyan Zone, which is the authority established under Rule 7(1) of Electricity Rules 2005 r/w Section 42(5) of Electricity Act, 2003 and the fact that said authority by its order dated 05.01.2006 held in favour of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, i.e. Appellant/Original Opposite Party in this Consumer complaint. Copy of the said order is also placed on record.  Based upon this fact, objections were also raised by the Appellant/Original Opposite Party in their written version objecting maintainability of the consumer complaint before Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Forum below did not accept the said argument and proceeded to settle the dispute in favour of the Complainant.  Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by Original Opposite party.

(5)          The issue is well settled, jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to deal with such type of consumer dispute is very much there.  However, since on her own, the Complainant preferred to seek redressal of her grievance electing Forum under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the rules framed therein, supra, it is no more open to her to file fresh consumer complaint on the same facts after having getting adverse finding in consumer dispute filed before Forum under the Electricity Act, 2003.  Useful reference on the point can be made to a decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the matter of A.E.E.K.P.C.L. V/s. T. Shiva Kumar, 1986-2006 Consumer 11361(NS).  It is observed therein as under:

“As per law settled by this Commission, it is for the consumer to opt for a given route for seeking Redressal of his grievances.  In this case, the complainant opted the route of approaching a particular authority for Redressal of his grievance of excess billing.  In our view, both the lower forums exceed their jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint and then acting as if an Appellate Authority of the State Electricity Board hierarchy and thus, further directing refund of the amount deposited by the complainant before the other Appellate Authority. This Commission has held in catena of judgements that Section 3 of the CPA does not envisage multiplicity of litigation and does not permit consumer forums to encourage forum hopping just because of existence of Section 3 of the CPA.  It is for the consumer to opt for a certain route of his volition and from there onwards, he is not expected to jump from one forum to another forum, which has been done in this case by the respondent/complainant which as per settled law by this Commission is not permitted.”

(6)          Thus, we find that Forum below erred in entertaining this present consumer dispute and resettle the dispute which was once settled.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

  (i)          Appeal is allowed.

(ii)          Impugned order dated 05/05/2007 is set aside and in the result, the consumer complaint stands dismissed.

(iii)          Respondent/original Complainant to bear her own cost and to pay Rs.2,000/- cost to the Appellant/Original Opposite Party.

(iv)          Appeal stands disposed of.