For the Respondents : Mr.Amrit Pal Singh, Advocate 03.12.2009 O R D E R Petitioner was opposite party before the State Commission. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondents/complainants (six in number) are the consumers of electricity from the petitioner company. Petitioner company changed the old electricity mechanical meters with new meters on 20.4.2003. Respondents alleged that installation of new electricity mechanical meters led to the billing on the higher side. Aggrieved by this, the respondents filed a common complaint before the State Commission clubbing six different causes of action into one and claiming the amount of Rs.20 lakh to bring it within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. Upon Notice, the petitioner took objection on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, clubbing of the six causes of action had been done to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. State Commission overruled the objection by observing that the complaint had been filed jointly having identical facts and interests and, therefore, the compensation and mental agony could be clubbed together to bring it within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition. We agree with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that, the six causes of action having six different complainants under separate connections in separate premises, could not be clubbed under one compensation amount to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. Each consumer should have filed a separate complaint before a fora having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is set aside. Complaint is dismissed to be returned to the respondents with liberty to file separate complaints before the appropriate fora. Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
