We have duly heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the points of admissibility of the present complaint and have also carefully examined its contents along with the statutory merit of the supporting document(s) in order to determine its adjudicatory sanction/suitability under the applicable Act.

2.       We find that the complainant Rajinder Singh has been a consumer of the opposite party # 1 Corporation (Service Provider) by virtue of being holder of the Electricity Connection # G25MM260736A and being aggrieved at the receipt of one allegedly excessive Bill dated 04.06.2012 for Rs.50,440/- he preferred the remedy (out of the available alternative remedies) of amicable ‘resolve’ before the department’s own established ‘Alternative Dispute Redressal Committee’ for the purpose. The requisite deposit (20% of the disputed Bill amount) was duly deposited vide receipt # 300 dated 04.07.2012. It has been further alleged that the opposite party service providers did never advise the complainant of the fate of his above case throughout the intervening years and presently (all of a sudden) have included/clubbed the disputed amount (taken as: Rs.50,993/=) of the year 2012 as ‘sundry charges’ in the regular monthly consumption Bill of 07.02.2016. The complainant vide(s) the present complaint has challenged/ contested the above acts of the opposite party corporation (service providers) terming the same as arbitrary, ultra-vires (and in violation) of the provisions of their own Sales Regulations.

3.       We find that the complainant has somehow himself suo-moto produced the orders/decision dated 08.11.2012 of the Dispute Redressal Committee to the above referral, duly approving thereby the amount of Rs.50,440/= drawn upon/billed to/charged to the complainant as consumption cost/ charges for 10552 units being the difference in final and initial Meter recorded readings being as:  (13754 – 3202 =10552). Apparently, these orders must have achieved finality since the complainant has not mentioned of its appeal/further resolve etc.

4.       Thus presently, the complainant is estopped from filing such complaint(s) since the related dispute has been found to be already legally resolved (even achieved finality) through one of the available alternatives including the one chosen i.e., resolve by the department’s own Dispute Redressal Committee. Presently, it shall not be open to the complainant to shift/re-file his dispute (for resolve etc) to another remedial resolve Authority/Committee/Forum/Tribunal etc., once he has chosen/opted out for the one from amongst the more than one alternatives available to him. We are firmly supported in our above considered opinion by virtue of the legal proposition(s) as determined out by the honorable Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh; in Appeal # 525-A of 2001 tilted as: PSEB and others vs. Sanjeev Kumar and another stating therein as:“3. There may be two remedies or even more than two available to a person to raise his grievance. Having chosen one remedy, the consumer cannot resort to the other remedy. He must pursue to the remedy already taken to its logical end. This commission has recently considered a similar matter in Appeal # 1049 of 2000 titled as PSEB vs. Anand Furnishers decided on 18.08.2005 where we had accepted the similar argument of the PSEB that in such circumstances, the complaint before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable”; And, once again confirmed in Appeal # 1000 of 2002 titled as: PSEB through its Sr. Ex. Engineer (OP) vs. Satish Kumar as: “3. The only point, at this stage, which has been raised by the appellants is that the complainant having chosen one remedy available to him out of the many remedies and having once approached the Dispute Settlement Committee then after the decision of Dispute Settlement Committee he cannot file a complaint before the Fora. He could have filed an appeal etc before the higher authority against the decision/orders of the Disputes Settlement Committee,” further at # 5. “No doubt, the remedy under the C P Act’ 1986 is in addition to and not in derogation of the remedies provided under other statutes but that would not mean that after availing one remedy out of many remedies available to a consumer and having failed there he can come to the Fora under the CP Act. Once a remedy is chosen, that must be taken to its logical end”.

5.       We have also respectfully studied the two judgments as cited by the learned counsel for the complainant as pronounced by the Hon’ble CDRC UT Chandigarh & Hon’ble HP State Commissions in RBT 343 of 2007 & FA 272 of 2009 and have found that even these do not assist him in any way; rather on the other hand these further strengthen our proposition though impliedly. These clarify that the consumer shall be at liberty to avail of the remedy under the CP Act’1986 but only at the ‘sacrifice’ of departmental ‘remedy’ available vide ‘Dispute Redressal Committee’.

6.       Thus, once one remedy (out of the more than one alternatives) gets availed of by the consumer he must stick to its final ‘resolve’ and shall be estopped from any subsequent remedy-shiftin-between the resolve-process and/or at the face of an unfavorable resolve etc.

7.       Thus, for the foregoing reasons we do not find any statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER the same to be dismissed in limine.

                             (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                                     President.                                                                                         

ANNOUNCED:                                                                      (Jagdeep Kaur)

APRIL 18, 2016                                                                              Member.

*YP*