Complainant/respondent (since deceased now represented by his LRs) had electricity connection of 7.5 H.P. for his tube well and atta chakki as industrial connection till July 1984.  From July 1984 the respondent discontinued the atta chakki and requested the petitioner for converting the connection from 7.5 H.P. to 5 H.P. and from then he was having the connection for tube well only.  Allegedly petitioner assured that the needful shall be done, but the same was not done.  Instead petitioner continued to raise the bills as per industrial connection and the

-2-

petitioner continued to pay the same on the assurance of the petitioner that whatever excess amount paid by him would be adjusted in future bills, but nothing of that sort happened.  On the contrary, petitioner disconnected his connection 24.02.1986.  That due to want of energy in his tube well, his agricultural operations suffered and he had suffered a huge loss.  Aggrieved by this petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming the following reliefs:

        “Therefore you are requested to direct Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Mainpuri to reconnect the electric connection of the Complainant immediately as per law and the excess amount paid by the complainant be returned to him or adjusted in future bill and in lieu of financial loss of the crops, compensation of Rs.70,000/- be awarded to the complainant.”

          District Forum vide its order dated 23.12.1993 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner that the bills issued after 05.12.1984 (date of removal of atta chakki) be considered a null and void and the amount paid be adjusted for the bills till the electricity was provided for tube well and if any further amount is still left the same would be adjusted in future bills.  Petitioner was further directed that after charging a sum of Rs.200/- from the respondent/complainant his

-3-

connection be restored within a week of the passing of the order.  Relief regarding financial loss due to failure of crops and compensation was declined. 

          Either of the parties did not carry any further appeal.  Order of the District Forum attained finality.  The same was complied with and the electricity of the complainant was restored on 21.04.1996.

          Complainant/respondent thereafter filed another complaint with the allegation that due to deficiency of service of the petitioner, he had suffered a loss of Rs.4 Lacs.

          Petitioner on being served entered appearance and took the preliminary objection that the second complaint on the same cause of action was not maintainable.  On merits it was contended that the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation which was denied to him.

          District Forum over ruling the objection raised by the petitioner allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of           Rs.2 Lacs along with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission partly allowed the appeal and reduced the compensation to Rs.70,000/-.

-4-

          The only point urged before us is that the second complaint on the same cause of action was not maintainable; that the relief claimed in the earlier complaint was the same as in the present case; that otherwise also the respondent should have included the whole of the relief to which he was entitled to make in the earlier complaints in respect of the cause of action.  Any relief or part of the relief arising from the cause of action omitted to be claimed would be deemed to have been given up/abandoned.  As against this, counsel for the respondent reiterates that the relief claimed in the earlier complaint was different than the relief claimed in the present complaint.

          Counsel for the parties have been heard. 

In the earlier complaint, petitioner apart from seeking restoration of the connection had asked for compensation for the loss suffered by him due to failure of crops.  This relief was denied to him.  District Forum directed the petitioner to restore the connection but did not grant any relief for the loss of the crops.  In the present complaint, petitioner has asked for reimbursement of the loss suffered due to failure of the crops.  The relief claimed by the respondent in the present complaint was the same as had been claimed in the earlier complaint.  The fora below have erred in holding that the relief claimed in the second complaint was different than the relief claimed in the first complaint.  It is a cardinal

-5-

principle of civil law that a person cannot be vexed twice over for the same cause of action.  As per Order II Rule 2, every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim not included in the complaint.  Any relief not claimed would be deemed to have been given up.  Since in the second complaint the relief claimed by the complainant/respondent was the same as in the first complaint, the second complaint filed by the respondent for the same cause of action was not maintainable.

          For the reasons stated above, revision petition is accepted.  Order of the fora below is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable.