Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, the ‘State Commission’) vide order dated 24.12.09, the complainant has filed the present appeal. This was not the first occasion that the complainant filed the complaint seeking almost identical relief before the State Commission but earlier also he had filed another complaint bearing No. CC/08/51 of 2008 which was dismissed earlier by the State Commission vide order dated 12.03.09. Instead of challenging the said order of dismissal of his earlier complaint, the complainant/appellant, it appears, under some misconception filed the second complaint bearing no. CC-69/09 before the State Commission. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. raising several objections including the objection about the maintainability of the second complaint based on the same alleged cause of action and seeking the same kind of reliefs. The State Commission upheld the said objection of the opposite party and held that the second complaint so ..3.. filed was not maintainable. However, going by the scope and the laudable object with which the Consumer Protection Act was enacted and that it is a benevolent piece of legislation, the State Commission while dismissing the complaint gave the following directions to the opposite parties:- “ The complaint is dismissed on contest without cost being not maintainable. The OPs are directed to clarify and explain to the complainant the provisions of law in regard to the mode and manner of recording his name as a consumer in respect of the given power line being apparent successor to the said premises post and demise of his father and also on making out a demand note of all outstanding dues in respect of the power line as on date with appropriate security deposit and penalty as may be chargeable. Applicable provisions of dispute redressal machinery as have been envisaged under the provisions of WBERC Regulation as published under number 36/WBERC dated 12.09.07 should also be brought to his notice with a note on applicability thereof under given position. Considering the plight of the complainant the OPs are directed to convey their response within 60 (sixty) days from the date of this judgement and order. ” 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He contends that the second complaint no. 69/09 was based on fresh cause of action which arose in his favour on issuance of two letters dated 10.10.08 and 19.10.08. In our view, issuance of these two ..4.. letters has not changed the substantive position which was the subject matter of the earlier complaint and in any case these letters were received by the complainant prior to the disposal of the earlier/first complaint and before filing of the second complaint. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the kind of reliefs which were claimed in the two complaints filed before the State Commission, it can be safely held that the second complaint filed by the complainant based on the same/earlier cause of action which had already accrued in favour of the complainant, the State Commission was fully justified in dismissing the second complaint as not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly urged that even the directions given by the State Commission to the respondents have not been complied with though a period of more than three months has elapsed since the passing of the impugned order. In this regard, we simply observe that for the kind of hardship the complainant is stated to be suffering due to non- supply of electricity at his premises he may move the State Commission for realization of ..5.. the directions given by the State Commission in the ultimate paragraph of the impugned order. With these observations, the First Appeal stands disposed of as devoid of any merit.