The second complaint was an abuse of process and barred by limitation.

ORDER

Ashok Bhan, President - Petitioner/Complainant has filed this Revision Petition against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Karnataka (in short, the State Commission ) in appeal No. 2163/07 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioner.

Facts:

2. Complainant/Petitioner was the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 98B/7 situated at Katnoor Village of Hubli Taluka. He developed the land for the purposes of plantation, horticulture and garden under the name and style of "Naga Farm". Petitioner dug the borewells in the said land to get better yield and applied for electric connection to the Respondent No. 1 for lifting the water from the said borewells. Respondent No. 1 installed the transformer in the land of the Petitioner to supply electricity to the borewells. It was alleged that the electric transformer was over-loaded and very often tripped causing short circuits, sparks etc. That due to poor maintenance, the transformer got short circuited on 3.11.2000 and there was a spark with bust sound. High tension wires caused extensive damage to the two borewells as well as other electric equipments installed in the land as a result of which Petitioner suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000. That on 15.3.2001 again the electric transformer got short-circuited and heavy fire burst out due to which thousands of standing fruit trees and other plants were destroyed. Petitioner served a legal notice on the Respondents to shift the said transformer to some other place and to pay compensation of Rs. 4,99,999 on account of loss suffered by him. However, the Respondents did not respond to the legal notice.

3. Complainant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum on 15.5.2002 seeking compensation for the loss suffered by him. Complaint was dismissed on 31.3.2004 for non-prosecution in default of appearance. On 28.4.2004, Petitioner filed an application seeking restoration which was dismissed on 5.4.2005. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a second application for restoration which was also dismissed. Instead of filing an appeal before the State Commission or a revision petition before this Commission seeking recall of the order dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution, Petitioner filed a second complaint on 6.11.2006 on the same cause of action.

4. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, on being served, put in appearance and filed their written submissions taking the preliminary objection that the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation and the second complaint was not maintainable. On merits it was submitted that the transformer was properly maintained at all the time sand there was no overloading, tripping or short circuiting.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 remained unrepresented before the District Forum and ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

5. District Forum dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation as well as on merits holding that the Petitioner has failed to establish that there was any negligence on the part of the Respondents in maintaining the transformer.

Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.

State Commission dismissed the appeal by observing thus:

"This appeal is by the complainant challenging the order dated 18.9.2007 passed by the District Forum, Dharwad in complaint No. 317/2006 dismissing his complaint on the ground of delay.

From the impugned order it is seen that the complainant has filed one complaint in the year 2002. That came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by the District Forum. Thereafter, a Miscellaneous Petition was filed. The same was also dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint in the year 2006.

From the impugned order it is seen that the complainant himself is not diligent in prosecuting the pro-ceedings. Therefore, we find no reason to entertain this appeal. In