IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 03.05.2023 Date of hearing: 14.10.2025 Date of Decision: 01.12.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO-189/2023 IN THE MATTER OF SH. AJAY KUMAR GARG, S/O LATE SH. PHOOLCHAND GARG, R/O 103/A, DARIYA MAHAL, 80 NEPEAN SEA ROAD, MUMBAI-400006.

ALSO AT:

FLAT NO. 5569/22, FIRST FLOOR, BASTI HARPHOOL SINGH, SADAR THANA ROAD, DELHI-110006 (Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. MR. VISHNU YADAV, S/O SH. GULAB CHAND YADAV, 2. POOJA YADAV, W/O SH. VISHNU YADAV, BOTH R/O: FLAT NO. 5569/22, FIRST FLOOR, BASTI HARPHOOL SINGH, SADAR THANA ROAD, DELHI-110006.

3. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD., (THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/CEO)

HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT:

SHAKTI KIRAN BUILDING, NEAR KARKARDOOMA, METRO STATION, VISHWAS NAGAR EXTENSION, SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032.

(Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Advocate)

…Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: None for the Appellant.

Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, counsel for the Respondent no. 1.

Mr. Saquib Neshat, counsel for Respondent no. 2 appeared through VC.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“….By way of the present complaint, the Complainant herein has alleged deficiency of service on part of the OP-1 as the said OP has disconnected the electricity connection installed at the premises of the Complainant on the complaint of one Shri Ajay Kumar Garg. In the initial complaint, Shri Ajay Kumar Garg was not a party. Subsequently, Shri Ajay Kumar Garg moved an application for impleadment as a party respondent on the ground that he is the rightful registered owner of the property in which the Complainant is residing in which the issue of electricity connection is involved. The said impleadment application was allowed by us vide our order dated 28.09.2022 particularly for the reason that the Complainant has not denied the registered sale deed in favour of Shri Garg thereby accepting the ownership of Shri Garg over the property. Hence, Shri Ajay Kumar Garg was impleaded ad OP-2 in this complaint.

During proceedings before this Commission, the parties have also pointed out that the Complainant has also approached the Civil Court seeking injunction against the OP-1 for similar relief as claimed in this complaint. The said fact of pendency of civil suit with identical prayer was not disclosed in the complaint by the Complainant herein.

OP-1 has pleaded in the application that as the Complainant has already approached the civil court prior to filing of this compliant seeking identical relief, he cannot be permitted to continue with the instant complaint. In support of its argument, Ld. Advocate for OP-1 has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Ajay Nagpal vs Today Homes & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (CC/1764/2017, order dated 15.04.2019) in which, Hon'ble National Commission has opined that a Consumer cannot pursue two remedies for the same cause of action. However, if a Consumer has not approached for redressal of its grievance under the particular Statute, the Consumer can approach the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act. But, if the Consumer had already approached the Authority under the relevant Statute, he cannot simultaneously file any complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Ld. Advocate for impleaded OP-2 also supports the arguments of the OP-1 In reply, the Complainant has argued that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishore Lal vs Chairman ESIC [(2007) 4 SCC 579], has held that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum should not and would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting the Consumer Forum to take up the matter which falls within the jurisdiction of civil court or any other forum as established under some enactment. The Court had gone to the extent of saying that if two different fora have jurisdictio