PANKAJ OIL MILLS-s vs EXECUTIVE ENGG H.S.E.B., KAITHAL

THE partly successful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Kaithal holding his complaint as infructuous, in view of the fair stand taken by the respondent.

IT would appear that the complainant-appellants were primarily aggrieved by the excessive line charges levied against them and it also claimed some cash rebate. In the proceedings before the District Forum, the Opposite Party fairly stated that the service rent of the complainant would be duly refunded by adjustment and further no service rent would be charged from him in future. The other allegations in the complaint were controverted. The District Forum duly recorded the statement of the parties on the point of the service rent and rightly held that this part of the complaint had become infructuous. It did not find any merit in the claim for any cash rebate and further noticed that during the proceedings, disputes had arisen about the imposition of penalty on account of the alleged theft and the order of the respondent to disconnect electricity. Holding that such disputes had not infact been raised in the complaint and had arisen in the pendency thereof and finding them somewhat complex and contentious, the appellants were relegated to the Civil Court for their adjudication.

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant apparently bereft of any meaningful challenge to the order under appeal had travelled into matters entirely beyond the record and made a grievance of what had allegedly taken place subsequent of the filing of the complaint for a period of six months till its decision. It was somewhat curiously argued that under Section 17(1)(b), this Commission should exercise its revisional jurisdiction with regards to matters, which admittedly were not actually pleaded in the complaint or in terms adjudicated upon by the District Forum.

WE are afraid that there is no merit whatsoever in the stand sought to be taken on behalf of the appellant. Admittedly because of the fair stand taken by the respondent, the dispute with regard to the service rent stood amicably settled. This part of the order under appeal has not been assailed before us and is affirmed. Equally, the learned Counsel did not challenge the finding on the cash rebate. He had merely confined himself to what is alleged to have happened subsequently to the filing of the complaint, during its pendency. Obviously enough, there can and should not be any adjudication on the matter, which in essence must be considered off the record as they are admittedly not a part of the pleadings of the parties at all. The appellant''s Counsels prayer of invoking the revisional jurisdiction is obviously without merit because where the statute provides for an appeal, the litigant must confine himself to the specific remedy and cannot invoke the revisional powers of this Commission, which are obviously meant for cases not covered by the appellate jurisdiction. The District Forum was, therefore, right in not adjudicating upon them and equally exercised its discretion correctly by relegating a somewhat overly contentious dispute for adjudication in a Civil Court.

FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.