HARJINDER KAUR Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the limited purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction for this complaint, it is unnecessary to advert deeply to the facts or merits.

(2.) It suffices to mention that the complainant claims to be a consumer of the electrical energy supplied by the opposite parties. A perusal of the complaint shows that the core of the matter is the alleged demanding of a fictitious bill of Rs.5,191/- raised by the opposite party against the complainant. However, the monetary claim for compensation has been inflated to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- interalia on the undermentioned ground in para 41 of the complaint: (i) Lowering down of reputation of the complainant in the neighbourhood. Rs.30,000/- (ii) Lowering down of the reputation of the husband of the complainant in the office as well as in the neighbourhood. Rs.50,000/- (ii) Loss to the education of children for non supply 9-10-91 to 5-12-91= rs.10,000/-6-12-91 to 13.2.91 = Rs.40,000/-Rs.50,000/-

(3.) It needs no great erudition to hold that damages for lowering down of the reputation of the complainant or her husband are not matters which can possibly be adjudicated or relief granted, therefor, in the consumer jurisdiction. It is elementary that civil relief for any alleged defamation can only be granted by the plenary Civil Courts. Even when pin pointed, the learned Counsel could not bring either the claim or quantum therefor, within the per meter of Sec.14 of the Act.