HP State Electricity Board was the opposite party before the State Commission.

          Respondent/complainant, which is a charitable hospital, got an electricity connection for 245 KV from the appellant after depositing the requisite amount.   Respondent/complainant got installed its own private electricity meter after getting it checked for its correctness  and got it sealed.  A satisfaction note to this effect was obtained. 

-2-

Respondent/complainant was receiving a monthly average bill of Rs.17,000/- which was being paid.  Grievance of the complainant started when he received a bill for Rs.39,492/- in February, 2000.  Though, the bill was paid, but a protest was lodged vide letter dated 07.3.2000 giving details of the previous bills with a request to examine the bill.  Again, he received an average bill of Rs.17,747/- in the month of March, 2000 which was paid.  Subsequently, a bill of Rs.1,60,397/- was received.  The reason for this enhanced bill, as communicated by the appellant, was that by mistake, the consumption of energy consumed as per meter installed in the hospital complex was being recorded as 1/10^th of the consumption due to non-accounting of last digit (Units) of the meter which was evident from the ledger record.  Another bill of Rs.18,76,137/- inclusive of arrears was subsequently sent by the appellant.  Being aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint before the H.P. State Commission attributing unfair trade practice by the appellant.

          Before filing the complaint before the State Commission, respondent had earlier filed a complaint before the District Forum

-3-

which was withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

          Respondent had approached Chief Electrical Inspector under Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 which was partly allowed.  The Chief Electrical Inspector had held that the respondent could pay 50% of the total arrears in 31 equal monthly installments.  Not satisfied with the order passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector, appellant Electricity Board filed statutory appeal before the Secretary (MPP & Power), Govt. of H.P.  Appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector, and directed the respondent to deposit the entire arrears along with interest @ 9% p.a.  

Immediately, thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission as well as petition before the Board Level Dispute Settlement Committee.  Board Level Dispute Settlement Committee dismissed the petition on 16.6.2003 holding that the respondent is liable to pay the bill of Rs.21.32 Lacs.

          The State Commission by the impugned order allowed the complaint and concluded as under:

“(i)     the demand raised through the impugned bill of May, 2000 vide Annexure C-7 to the complaint and the coercive action taken or sought to be taken in pursuance thereof is quashed.  At the same time, it is however made clear that as already directed, by our interim order dated 2.12.2002, the installments towards payment of the arrears as agreed upon between the parties prior to the filing of the complaint, and which may have already been paid till date by the complainant to the Board, shall not be refunded nor the complainant shall be entitled to get the amount of the said installments refunded from the Board.  The balance amount in pursuance of the impugned bill aforementioned which remains to be realized from the complainant shall be recovered from him in any manner by the Board.

(ii)      for the harassment caused to the complainant due to the illegal and high-handed act of the Board in this behalf, it shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation/damages.  The costs of the complaint quantified in the sum of Rs.5,000/- shall also be paid by the Board to the complainant in respect of the present complaint.”

-5-

Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the present appeal has been filed.

          Counsel for the appellant contends that the complainant could not file two separate petitions for the redressal of his grievance seeking same relief, one before the State Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the other before Chief Electrical Inspector under Section 26 (6) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910; that as per Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the respondent could not be permitted to indulge in ‘Forum Hopping’.  As against this, counsel for the respondent states that the respondent had not indulged in any ‘Forum Hopping’.  He admits that he had approached the Chief Electrical Inspector in which his grievance was partly redressed and he has complied with the said order; that the State Electricity Board had approached the appellate authority which reversed the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector on merits as well as by holding that the Chief Electrical Inspector did not have the jurisdiction to try the case as it was not a case of defective meter; that after recording a finding that the Chief Electrical Inspector did not

-6-

have the jurisdiction to try the case, the appellate authority should not have passed the order on merits.

          We have gone through the order passed by the appellate authority.  The appellate authority has mentioned following three grounds for setting aside the order of the State Commission:

“a)     The C.E.I. does not have the jurisdiction to try this case as it is not a case of defective meter.

b)                To give relief to Indus Hospital due to the fact that it is a charitable institution is wrong on the part of C.E.I.

c)                The C.E.I. had ordered that the arrears have to be paid but dividing into 31 equal installments is absolutely wrong.  This liberty has not been given to C.E.I.

          Except for mentioning that the Chief Electrical Inspector did not have the jurisdiction to try the case, the appellate authority did not record any detailed finding regarding this point.  The appellate authority decided the appeal on merits and the findings have been recorded only on merits only.  The respondent did not challenge the said order and instead filed a complaint before the State Commission.

-7-

          The respondent had also gone before the Board Level Dispute Settlement Committee after the order was passed in the appeal by the appellate authority which was dismissed on 16.6.2003 during the pendency of the complaint before the State Commission.  This Commission in “First Appeal N0.780/2006 titled as Bishop Cotton School Vs. HPSEB & Anr. (decided on 25^th April, 2006) has held that the appellant cannot be allowed to indulge in ‘Forum Hopping’; that consumer cannot take advantage of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in the garb of availing of additional remedy, the respondent could not approach different forums for rederessal of the same grievance.  It was held as under:

          “Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides an additional platform for seeking relief but that could not be used as an instrument of forum-hopping and in that connection it was held by us that if a consumer has taken a certain route for seeking relief than he should follow that route till finality.”

          In the present case, we find that the respondent had approached different forums for redressal of its grievance which

-8-

amounted to ‘Forum Hopping’ which he could not be permitted to do.  The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the State Commission

is set aside.  The respondent/complainant is put at liberty to seek remedy against the order passed either by the appellate authority or the Board Level Dispute Settlement Committee.

            While doing so, the respondent would be at liberty to seek condonation of delay for the period spent before the consumer fora under Section 14 of Limitation Act as per law laid down by Supreme Court in “Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P. S. G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583”.