PER SMT.JAYASHREE YENGAL, HON’BLE MEMBER

1.         Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13/08/2008 passed by District Consumer Forum,Nagpur in CC No.300/08 directing the appellant to cancel the bill issued by the appellant MSEDCL to the Respondent Nita Patel towards electric consumption charges and refund the bill amount of Rs.43,180/- which was paid by the Respondent under protest and further to pay compensation of Rs.7000/- and Rs.3000/- towards litigation charges, the original opponent has filed the instant appeal.

2.         The question involved in this appeal is whether the Respondent having opted for a remedy under the Electricity Act,2003 can file a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 before the forum  to redress the same grievance which she had raised before the  Consumer Grievances Forum constituted under the Electricity Act,2003.

3.         The facts of the case to the extent relevant to decide the appeal are as follows.

The Respondent herein/Original complainant filed consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 contending that she is a consumer of the appellant MSEDCL and had an electric connection for residential purpose. Since her residential flat was locked most of the time, she being residing at Hinganghat being in service, her monthly electric consumption on an average was 5 to 15 units and accordingly, she was given the bill till February,2007. In the month of May,2007 she received the electricity bill for the sum of Rs.42,220/- showing therein the arrears of a sum of Rs.40,155/- for the month of April,2007. She made a complaint  for correcting the exorbitant bill but she was told that the bill was correct and therefore, the electric supply was disconnected on 4/10/2007 for non payment. The Respondent, therefore, deposited an amount of Rs.43,180/- on 31/3/2008 under protest and the electric supply was restored. Alleging deficiency in service, the Respondent filed consumer complaint claiming cancellation of electricity bill, refund of the said amount with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.10000/-.

4.         The Appellant put in their appearance and filed their written version wherein the appellant had taken preliminary objection that Respondent has already approached the Consumer Grievance Forum constituted under the MERC regulations by filing a Grievance application No.8/08 which was decided on merit vide order dated 18/2/2008. A Consumer having selected a remedy and in the event of the consumer being aggrieved by the order passed in that remedy and having a remedy available to challenge the same before the Electricity Ombudsman appointed by the NERC under regulation 10 of the NERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations  2006, a Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 is not maintainable.

5.         The District Forum, Nagpur overruled the preliminary objection by observing that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 is an additional remedy and, therefore, a consumer complaint is maintainable and, thereby allowed the complaint and awarded the reliefs as mentioned above.

6.         Being aggrieved by the award passed by the District Forum, Nagpur, the opponent MSEDCL has come in appeal challenging the award on the preliminary objection of maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum. The appellant has placed its reliance on 1 (2008) CPJ 180 Reliance Electricity Centre & Anr. Vs. Mukaram Shaikh & IV (2008) CPJ 79 (NC)  Pratap Vs. MSEDCL.

7.         Heard advocate for the appellant. None was present for the Respondent. Perused the documents and affidavits on record.

8.         The fact that the Respondent had opted for the remedy before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under the NERC regulations and the grievance has been decided on merits vide order dated 18/2/2008 is substantiated by the certified copy of the order filed on record.

9.         Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Grievance Cell dismissing the grievance application of the Respondent, the respondent filed a consumer complaint on 29/5/2008 before the District Forum, Nagpur seeking redressal of the same grievance.

The facts of the instant appeal squarely fall within the ratio laid down in the judgment mentioned above,

“ The consumer have to choose whether they should file consumer complaint in the Forum established under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 or whether they should file representation before the forum established under the Electricity Act, 2003. But once consumer decides to approach consumer Fora established under the Electricity Act,2003, then their right to file consumer dispute in Consumer Forum established under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 stands forfeited.”

10.       Thus, relying on this ruling, we are of the view that the complainant should not have approached the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur as she had chosen/opted for the remedy under the Electricity Act,2003. In the event of she being aggrieved by the order, she should have further approached the Electricity Ombudsman of State of Maharashtra.

11.       We are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in CC No.300/08 is not sustainable in law and is improper and illegal. The Respondent has failed to establish that the redressal sought before the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur is different than the grievance filed before the grievance cell established under the Electricity Act.

12.       On merits also the Respondent has failed to prove that the alleged electric meter of the Respondent was faulty &/or any deficiency of service against the appellant. On the other hand there is ample evidence on record to suggest that the electric meter was duly tested and reported as OK and also due notice was issued by the appellant to the Respondent before disconnection of electric supply.

 In the circumstances we pass the following order…

                                                            ORDER