AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
FOR the limited purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction for this complaint, it is unnecessary to advert deeply to the facts or merits.
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/- 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 Section 14 of the Act.
Equally the loss to the education of the children for non-supply of electricity has been '' curiously pegged at. Rs. 50,000/-. Without overly elaborating the matter. We are unable to see how a lis of this nature and the quantum of relief therefor can be seriously entertained within the consumer jurisdiction. Apparently this figure work has been done to bring the matter within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Station Commission, though the tall claim is that the injury is even more than the claimed amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
FOR the fore-going reasons, we are of the view that by no stretch of imagination can the present complaint be brought within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The same is consequently returned to the complainant for presentation to the competent District FORum as she may be advised. In view of the above, it is unnecessary to examine the very maintainability of the complaint in view of the disposal by this Commission other earlier complaint Cases No. 31 of 1991 and 7 of 1992. Complaint returned.