Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President — For the limited purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction for this complaint, it is unnecessary to advert deeply to the facts or merits.

2. It suffices to mention that the complainant claims to be a consumer of the electrical energy supplied by the opposite parties. A perusal of the complaint shows that the core of the matter is the alleged demanding of a fictitious bill of Rs. 5,191/- raised by the opposite party against the complainant. However, the monetary claim for compensation has been inflated to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- interalia on the undermentioned ground in para 41 of the complaint:

(i) Lowering down of reputation

of the complainant in the

neighbourhood. Rs. 30,000/-

(ii) Lowering down of the

reputation of the husband

of the complainant in the

office as well as in the

neighbourhood. Rs. 50,000/-

(ii) Loss to the education of

children for non supply

9-10-91 to 5-12-91=

Rs. 10,000/-6-12-91 to

13.2.91 = Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 50,000/-

3. It needs no great erudition to hold that damages for lowering down of the reputation of the complainant or her husband are not matters which can possibly be adjudicated or relief gran