PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SURINDER MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(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.) 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 jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 9, CPC cannot be barred. This judgment of the Honble High Court has been considered by this Commission in Appeal No. 525A of 2001 titled as PSEB v. Sanjeev Kumar and Another, decided on 22.8.2005 where we had observed that this judgment was given on a point raised whether the Civil Court jurisdiction is barred in view of the remedies provided by the PSEB. Answer given was that Civil Court jurisdiction is not barred. The authority cited does not hold that a person cannot avail the remedies provided by the PSEB. If a Civil Suit is filed or even if a complaint is filed under the Consumer Protection Act, the PSEB cannot non -suit the plaintiff or complainant by saying that he must approach the authorities constituted by the PSEB to get his grievance redressed. However, once the complainant chooses to avail the remedy provided by the PSEB to get his grievance redressed, then under these circumstances, he cannot approach the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.