No one appears for the respondent despite notice for today’s hearing, which we presume to have been served on the respondent. Heard Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner-Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and considered his submissions. There is delay in filing the present petition and an application for condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons stated in the application and that we are inclined to examine the correctness and legality of the impugned order, we allow the application and condone the delay, subject to cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited in the ‘Legal Aid Account’ of this Commission within two weeks. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the State Commission’) in -3- Appeal No. 2800/2002(HRY)/RBT/1346/2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-Board herein against the order dated 23.10.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sirsa by which the District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent/Shemsher Singh and quashed the bill/memo No. 1620 dated 18.11.1997 imposing a penalty of Rs.28,395/-, and directed the petitioner-Board to refund/adjust the amount paid by the complainant-respondent alongwith cost of Rs.500/- of the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Board seeks to assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that before filing the consumer complaint before the District forum, Sirsa, the complainant had filed a statutory appeal before the competent authority prescribed under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 against the said memo/demand, which appeal was considered by the competent authority and dismissed. Afterwards, the complainant had filed a civil suit bearing No. 677 of 1998 challenging the validity of the said memo and seeking declaration that the petitioner-Board was not entitled to the amount under the memo, which suit was also dismissed by a -4- competent civil court. It was after resorting and exhausting those remedies that the complainant choose to file the complaint to which, in our opinion, he was not entitled to. Even going by provision of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by no stretch, it can be said that a person is entitled to raise the issue again before a consumer fora, which he had raised before a competent civil court but failed to get the requisite relief. For this reason alone, we are of the view that the impugned order as well as the order of the District forum are legally unsustainable because the complaint itself was not maintainable. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and the orders passed by fora below are hereby set aside. No order as to costs in these proceedings.