IMPORTANT POINT
Where consumer has raised a dispute in a civil suit, he cannot approach the Consumer Forum under the consumer Protection Act for the same relief.

Irshad Hussain, President— Service provider UPCL preferred this revision petition under Section 17(1)(b ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 26.3.2009 passed by learned District Forum, Haridwar in Consumer Complaint No.70/2009. By this order, it has been held that the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint on merit, in view of the dispute relating to proper billing of electricity charges involved in it.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts and legal aspects of the case, we may state at the outset that the impugned order suffers from vice of illegal exercise of jurisdiction and, therefore, is liable to be set aside and the complaint itself is liable to be dismissed.

3. The reasons for the aforesaid inference are that the complainant had a commercial electricity connection of 60 H.P. for running an ice factory and the bills of electricity charges placed on record, prove that the connection obtained is commercial. There can be no doubt that an ice factory runs on 60 H.P. electricity load, itself indicate that the complainant obtained the electricity connection and is using it for commercial purposes, so as to generate profit from this industry. Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the complaint filed falls outside the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which after the amendment of 2002, excludes from its ambit any service taken for commercial purpose. The District Forum failed to consider this important aspect of the matter and, thus, wrongly assumed jurisdiction in itself to entertain and decide the complaint. It may also be pointed out that the decision rendered in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and Another. v. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd.1 by the Hon’ble Apex Court and pressed into service by the learned counsel for complainant/respondent, pertain to the provision of the Act prior to the above mentioned amendment of 2002 and, therefore, this decision has no application to the facts of the instant case.

4. Averment of paragraph No.9 of the complaint reveal that the complainant was sent incorrect electricity charges bill, although the complainant was willing and eager to pay the electricity charges according to correct bill and, therefore, it was necessary that the correct bill of electricity charges be issued to him, so that at the earliest, he may deposit the amount of the correct electricity bill. In view of the provisions of Sections 50 and 181 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 read with Clause 3.3.3. of Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (The Electricity Supply Code) Regulations 2007, the matter is required to be adjudicated by the dispute redressal machinery within the period stipulated on receipt of the complaint about the in correct billing from the complainant. This provision provides that on receipt of the complaint from the electricity consumer, the licensee shall resolve the consumer’s complaint and intimate the result to the consumer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the complaint. It also provides that till the complaint on the bill is resolved, the consumer shall either pay the amount specified in the disputed bill or the amount raised in the provisional bill by the licensee for the disputed period based on average consumption of last three consecutive undisputed bills. Amount so recovered shall be subject to final adjustment on resolution of the complaint. In view of such provision, dispute as regards the incorrect electricity bill, was required to be resolved by this dispute redressal machinery and, as such, the complainant has had no vested right to file the consumer complaint before the District Fora. For that reason also, the complaint was not maintainable and the District Forum failed to take into account this important fact while passing the impugned order.

5. Lastly, the complainant has already raised such a dispute in a