RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 32 OF 2017
Santosh Kumar Tulsyan
S/o Parmanand Tulsyan
R/o Pikaura Datturai
Post Gandhi Nagar
District Basti, Uttar Pradesh
...Complainant
Vs.
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Office of Adhishashi Abhiyanta
Vidyut Vitran Khand-I
Near Badshah Marriage Hall
Malviya Road, Basti
Through Adhishashi Abhiyanta
...Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Complainant : Mr. Rajesh Chadha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :
Dated : 06-06-2017
JUDGMENT
PER MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint under Section-17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 filed by complainant Santosh Kumar Tulsyan against Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. with averment that the complainant is owner and proprietor of a shop inter-alia dealing with regards to cloth and cloth related articles situated at Gandhi Nagar, Basti and earns his and his family livelihood from the said shop. He has electric connection in his shop provided by opposite party.
It has been alleged by complainant that opposite party sent a demand notice dated 01-12-2016 alongwith bill dated 29-11-2016 issued for the said connection making illegally the demand of Rs.37,18,967/- against provisions of Electric Supply Code 2005 and disconnected the above connection of complainant arbitrarily and illegally without compliance of provisions of Electric Supply Code 2005.
:2:
It has been further alleged by complainant that pursuant to said demand notice dated 01-12-2016 as well as bill dated 29-11-2016 a complaint bearing number 380 of 2016 was filed in the name of Woon Ka Sagar Vastram Private Limited before State Commission whereas said Woon Ka Sagar Vastram Private Limited is not holder of electric connection in question. It has been further stated that the said complaint has been dismissed at admission stage vide order dated 15-12-2016 passed by State Commission.
In present complaint it has been further alleged that the complainant submitted reply of above demand notice dated 01-12-2016 to opposite party and demanded restoration of his electric connection but the opposite party vide its letter dated 12-01-2017 refused to rectify the wrong bills and to restore the electric connection of complainant. In view of these facts feeling aggrieved the complainant Santosh Kumar Tulsyan has filed present complaint before State Commission in his own name.
After having gone through averments made in present complaint as well as in previous Complaint No. 380/2016 Woon Ka Sagar Vastram Private Limited V/s U. P. Power Corporation Limited and others it becomes clear that the previous complaint was for same electric bill and demand notice which is the basis of present complaint and the complaint No. 380/2016 Woon Ka Sagar Vastram Private Limited V/s U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others was filed by Santosh Kumar Tulsyan present complainant himself as Managing Director of Woon Ka Sagar Vastram Private Limited wherein Sri Santosh Kumar Tulsyan has deposed on oath that he had started business of garments located at Chowk Gandhi Nagar, District Basti and for this he has taken electric connection bearing Consumer No. 13285652. As such, present complainant Santosh Kumar Tulsiyan himself has deposed on oath that the electric connection in question has been taken by him for his business of garments located at Chowk Gandhi Nagar, District Basti.
Considering the averments made in complaint of previous Complaint No. 380/2016 this Commission was of the view that complainant Woon Ka
:3:
Sagar Vastram Private Limited is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the complaint is not maintainable. As such, the above complaint has been dismissed vide order dated 15-12-2016 passed by this State Commission.
Complainant Santosh Kumar Tulsyan, who had filed above Complaint No. 380/2016 as Managing Director of Woon Ka Sagar Vastram Private Limited, has filed this second complaint in his own name with averment that he has obtained electric connection for the shop and he is running shop for his livelihood. Previous complaint i.e. Complaint No. 380/2016 has already been dismissed by this State Commission vide order dated 15-12-2016 and present complaint is based on same facts as well as deficiency alleged. As such, I am of the view that this complaint filed by complainant Santosh Kumar Tulsyan is barred by principle of Resjudicata.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others V/s Achyut Kashi Nath Karekak and another reported in IV(2011) CPJ 35(SC) that the State Commission or Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to review or recall its order passed earlier under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has referred following case laws to show that complaint in respect of electric connection even for commercial purpose is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
- Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited V/s Ramesh Kumar Rohilla reported in I(2015) CPJ 249(NC)
- Delhi Public School V/s Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others reported in I(2015) CPJ 212(NC).
- Kerala State Electricity Board and another V/s Yesu Adimanadar(Died) Through Legal Heir reported in II(2016) CPJ 238(NC).
I have gone through the case laws referred by learned Counsel for the complainant. In view of discussion made above these case laws are not helpful to complainant at this stage as the State Commission has no jurisdiction to review order passed earlier.
In view of discussion made above, after having gone through whole
:4:
facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that present complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly.
Let copy of this order be made available to the complainant as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
