Appeal No. 200 of 2001. Case: Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Surinder Malhotra & Anr.. Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberAppeal No. 200 of 2001
CounselFor the Appellant: Mr. C.S. Chuman, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Dinesh Malhotra for Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocates.
JudgesMr. R.S. Mongia, President; Mr. C. P. Budhiraja & Mrs. Jasbir Kapoor, Members
IssueCivil Procedure Code - Section 9; Consumer Protection Act
Citation2005 (IV) CPJ 528
Judgement DateAugust 29, 2005
CourtPunjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Mr. R. S. Mongia, President

  1. This is an appeal against the order dated 16.1.2001 of the District Forum, Ludhiana by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed in the following terms:

    "Accordingly, the demand in respect to Rs. 62,944.20 is quashed and the opposite party is directed to refund the amount deposited against the said demand along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The compliance shall be done within one month of the receipt of this order."

  2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Admittedly, respondent-complainant had taken resort to another remedy of approaching the Disputes Settlement Committee constituted by the PSEB. The decision of the Disputes Settlement Committee was given against the complainant on 27.8.1999. The decision has been produced before us which is ordered to be placed on record as Annexure 'A',

  3. This Commission recently considered a similar matter in Appeal No. 1049 of 2000 titled as PSEB v. M/s Anand Finishers, decided on 18.8.2005 where we had accepted the appeal of PSEB holding that in such circumstances, the complaint before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. There may be two remedies or even more than two available to it person to raise his grievance. Having chosen one remedy, the consumer cannot resort to the other remedy. He must pursue to the remedy already taken to its logical end. According to us, the case is fully covered in favour of the Electricity Board vide our aforesaid judgment. Consequently, we hold that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum under the circumstances of the case.

  4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant submitted that a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Punjab State Electricity Board, reported as 2004(1) RCJ 626 held that the remedy of alternative dispute mechanism under the regulations is not statutory remedy and is neither adequate nor efficacious. By virtue of such regulations, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT