Mr. Justice S.S. Dewan, President — This is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short ‘the Act’).

2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this complaint is not maintainable. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to mention that Smt. Kulwant Kaur, complainant-1 is the widow while complainants-2 to 6 are the minor children of Bawa Singh. The late Bawa Singh, husband of Smt. Kulwant Kaur was the landowner of village Chhina, District Gurdaspur. He had electric connection in his fields, bearing No. N-2-646. It is alleged that for installing the said electric connection, the opposite-party, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division covering village Naushehra Majha Singh, Division Dhariwal, Circle Gurdaspur had laid tension wires through the fields of Bawa Singh and some of the high tension wires were broken in the month of July, 1991 and the same were lying in the fields of Bawa Singh. This matter was reported to the SDO of the said Sub Division who had assured Bawa Singh that the broken wires would be mended in due course of time and on this assurance, the latter resumed working in his fields. The case of the complainant is that on 25.7.91 while Bawa Singh was cutting fodder from his field, he came in contact with the loose wire lying in his fields, he was electrocuted and died. Smt. Kulwant Kaur complainant, being the guardian and next friend of her minor children, has filed the complaint, praying that she may be a warded Rs. 8 lakhs as compensation on account of the death of her husband Bawa Singh, due to the negligence of the respondent-Board.

3. On notice being issued, the respondent-Board raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable under the Act as a complaint in respect of the same matter, was pending between the parties before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation & Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur. On merits, the allegations of the complainant were controverted and what was highlighted was the fact that the fatal accident to Bawa Singh occurred on 25.7.1991 due to the use of unauthorised supply by Baldev Singh, a resident of village Naushehra Majha Singh and not due to the fault of the respondent-Board. It was averred that the tube well-connection of Baldev Singh was being actually fed from 11KV Ghuman Feeder on the day of occurrence and that resulted in back feeding of the current in the said Feeder which caused the fatal accident. The quantum of relief claimed by the complainants and the allegations of negligence and deficiency on the part of the respondent-Board were all denied. In the rejoinder filed by the complainant-1, all the allegations made by her in the complaint were reiterated.

4. In support of their claim, the respondent-1 rested herself content with the documents Annexures Al to A16 to the complaint. The learned Counsel for the complainants stated at the bar that these documents may be treated as evidence to be adduced on behalf of the complainant-1. The respondent-Board put on record documents Annexures R1 to R10 and also filed the affidavits of Sh. Harjit Singh Nag, Executive Engineer, Dhariwal in support of its case. On the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, their evidence was closed by this Commission.

5. The question that arises for determination is, whether the State Commission constituted under the Act has got the jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.

6. At the very outset, we must necessarily notice the pointed and vehement stand of Sh. JPS Sandhu, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Board that on 5.8.91 complainant-1 had filed a complaint (Annexure R9) for compensation before the Chairman/Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala which is now subjudice before the Commissioner, Workman Compensation & Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur. The submission of Sh. Sandhi is that the matter being sub ju