State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Ajay Kumar Garg vs Shri Vishnu Yadav & Ors on 1 December, 2025
FA/189/2023 MR. AJAY KUMAR GARG VS. MR. VISHNU YADAV D.O.D.: 01.12.2025
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 03.05.2023
Date of hearing: 14.10.2025
Date of Decision: 01.12.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO-189/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
SH. AJAY KUMAR GARG,
S/O LATE SH. PHOOLCHAND GARG,
R/O 103/A, DARIYA MAHAL,
80 NEPEAN SEA ROAD, MUMBAI-400006.
ALSO AT:
FLAT NO. 5569/22,
FIRST FLOOR, BASTI HARPHOOL SINGH,
SADAR THANA ROAD, DELHI-110006
(Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
1. MR. VISHNU YADAV,
S/O SH. GULAB CHAND YADAV,
2. POOJA YADAV,
W/O SH. VISHNU YADAV,
BOTH R/O: FLAT NO. 5569/22, FIRST FLOOR,
BASTI HARPHOOL SINGH, SADAR THANA ROAD,
DELHI-110006.
3. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/CEO)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT:
SHAKTI KIRAN BUILDING,
NEAR KARKARDOOMA, METRO STATION,
VISHWAS NAGAR EXTENSION, SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032.
(Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Advocate)
...Respondents
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 9
FA/189/2023 MR. AJAY KUMAR GARG VS. MR. VISHNU YADAV D.O.D.: 01.12.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: None for the Appellant.
Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, counsel for the Respondent no. 1.
Mr. Saquib Neshat, counsel for Respondent no. 2 appeared
through VC.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"....By way of the present complaint, the Complainant herein has alleged deficiency of service on part of the OP-1 as the said OP has disconnected the electricity connection installed at the premises of the Complainant on the complaint of one Shri Ajay Kumar Garg. In the initial complaint, Shri Ajay Kumar Garg was not a party. Subsequently, Shri Ajay Kumar Garg moved an application for impleadment as a party respondent on the ground that he is the rightful registered owner of the property in which the Complainant is residing in which the issue of electricity connection is involved. The said impleadment application was allowed by us vide our order dated 28.09.2022 particularly for the reason that the Complainant has not denied the registered sale deed in favour of Shri Garg thereby accepting the ownership of Shri Garg over the property. Hence, Shri Ajay Kumar Garg was impleaded ad OP-2 in this complaint.
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 9 FA/189/2023 MR. AJAY KUMAR GARG VS. MR. VISHNU YADAV D.O.D.: 01.12.2025
During proceedings before this Commission, the parties have also pointed out that the Complainant has also approached the Civil Court seeking injunction against the OP-1 for similar relief as claimed in this complaint. The said fact of pendency of civil suit with identical prayer was not disclosed in the complaint by the Complainant herein.
OP-1 has pleaded in the application that as the Complainant has already approached the civil court prior to filing of this compliant seeking identical relief, he cannot be permitted to continue with the instant complaint. In support of its argument, Ld. Advocate for OP-1 has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Ajay Nagpal vs Today Homes & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (CC/1764/2017, order dated 15.04.2019) in which, Hon'ble National Commission has opined that a Consumer cannot pursue two remedies for the same cause of action. However, if a Consumer has not approached for redressal of its grievance under the particular Statute, the Consumer can approach the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act. But, if the Consumer had already approached the Authority under the relevant Statute, he cannot simultaneously file any complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Ld. Advocate for impleaded OP-2 also supports the arguments of the OP-1 In reply, the Complainant has argued that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishore Lal vs Chairman ESIC [(2007) 4 SCC 579], has held that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum should not and would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting the Consumer Forum to take up the matter DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 9 FA/189/2023 MR. AJAY KUMAR GARG VS. MR. VISHNU YADAV D.O.D.: 01.12.2025 which falls within the jurisdiction of civil court or any other forum as established under some enactment. The Court had gone to the extent of saying that if two different fora have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum would not be barred and the power of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate upon the dispute could not be negated. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he argues, the Complainant can approach the Consumer Commission even if he has approached the civil court for adjudication of his grievances."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 27.02.2023, whereby it held as under:
"We have perused the judgments and pleadings of the parties. It is indeed a fact that under section 100 of the CPA, 2019, the Complainant has additional remedy before the Consumer Commissions which is in addition to the remedies available to the Complainant otherwise. But at the same time, it is also important to note here that there are certain facts and circumstances that require detailed evidence to be led for examining the claim of the complainant. One such disputed issue is that the whether the complainant herein is in rightful possession of the premises in question or not. Further, the continuity of possession of the premises is also in question which is also important to adjudicate the lis. All these issues require detailed evidence based trial which is not possible in the summary procedure as prescribed under the provisions of CPA, 2019. In the matter of Synco Industries v. State Bank of DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 9 FA/189/2023 MR. AJAY KUMAR GARG VS. MR. VISHNU YADAV D.O.D.: 01.12.2025 Bikaner & Jaipur [(2002) 2 SCC 1], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases in which detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses, Consumer Fora are not appropriate forum to hear and disposed of such cases in a summary fashion. Civil Courts are the appropriate forum to adjudicate such cases where evidence can be led.
Further, we also find that the Complainant has concealed the fact that he has already approached the civil court and after an unsuccessful attempt to get favourable interim order, he has approached this Commission. Concealment of facts by the Complainant is seen very seriously by this Commission. Hence, for the reason that the complaint requires detailed examination and evidence bases trial, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Synco industries (supra), and also in view of the fact that the Complainant has made concealment of material facts, we are not inclined to entertain this complaint. Hence, the application filed by the OP-1 is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.
However it is to be noted that by our interim orders dated 14.07.2022 and 18.07.2022, we have directed OP-1 to install temporary electricity connection in the premises of the Complainants herein. It is clarified that such temporary electricity connection shall not be disconnected by OP-1 merely on account of dismissal of the complaint. However OP-1 shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps before forum of appropriate jurisdiction including the civil court where the civil suit is pending, for disconnecting the connections of the DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 9 FA/189/2023 MR. AJAY KUMAR GARG VS. MR. VISHNU YADAV D.O.D.: 01.12.2025 Complainant. Needless to say that the Complainants shall continue to make payments of the bills so raised by the OP-1 on the temporary electricity connections, failing which, Op-1 shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against Complainants in accordance with law.
With above directions, the complaint is dismissed. However, it is further clarified that we have not expressed any opinion in this order and the adjudicating civil court and/or any other appropriate authority shall decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made in this order."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission the Appellant/Opposite Party No. 2 has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission acted beyond its powers by granting an injunction and ordering electricity installation, effectively acting as a Civil Court, which violates the Consumer Protection Act. The counsel for the Appellant further submitted that District Commission failed to consider that Respondent allegedly obtained electricity connection by using false documents. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission.
4. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply, whereby they have denied all the submissions of the Appellant and submitted that the present appeal is false, frivolous and an abuse of the process of law, filed only to harass and pressurize the answering Respondents. The Respondents further submitted that the Appellant had earlier moved a frivolous application before the BSES for disconnection of the electricity connection standing in the name of the Respondent and his wife and in collusion with BSES officials, succeeded in getting the electricity disconnected on 16.06.2022. Consequently, the DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 9 FA/189/2023 MR. AJAY KUMAR GARG VS. MR. VISHNU YADAV D.O.D.: 01.12.2025 Respondent and his wife were compelled to file a suit for permanent injunction against the Appellant and BSES, which was decreed in their favour on 09.08.2023 by the Court of Ms. Neha Garg, CJ, Central Delhi. Pursuant to the said decree, the Respondent has already moved an application for surrender of the temporary electricity meter before Respondent No. 3. Pressing the aforesaid, the Respondents lastly submitted that no cause of action survives for the present appeal and prayed for the dismissal of the present Appeal.
5. The Respondent No. 3 has filed his reply, whereby submitting that the present Appeal pertains to the civil dispute between the Appellant and Respondent no. 1 & 2 concerning the ownership (title) and possession of the property, which is already pending in a civil court. Pressing the aforesaid, the Respondent no. 3 submitted that the provision of electricity connection is separate from the ownership dispute being adjudicated by the civil court.
6. The Written Submissions/Arguments have been filed by the Appellant wherein the contents of the Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered.
7. Written Synopsis on behalf of the Respondent no. 1and 2 wherein the contents of Reply to the Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered.
8. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel appeared on behalf of the parties.
9. The main question for consideration before us is whether the impugned order passed by the District Commission suffers any infirmity?
10. On perusal of the record, we find that the Complaint case bearing no. 309 of 2022 was filed before District Commission and vide interim order dated 14.07.2022, the temporary electricity connection was directed to be installed in the premises in question which was earlier disconnected by the Respondent no. 3 upon the application of the Appellant.
DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 9 FA/189/2023 MR. AJAY KUMAR GARG VS. MR. VISHNU YADAV D.O.D.: 01.12.2025
11. Further, we find that the civil dispute pertaining to the premises in question was also filed before Ms. Neha Garg, Civil Judge-01, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi whereby vide order dated 09.08.2023, the District Court observed that the electricity is an essential amenity and no person can be deprived of the same as Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 entitles an occupier of the premises to the supply of Electricity and also relied upon the case titled "Abhimanyu Mazumdar Vs. Superintending Engineer and Another", AIR 2011 Cal. 64 and "Fashion Proprietor Aswani Kumar Maity Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. reported as 2009 (4) ICC 502 and hold that the Respondent no. 1 & 2 herein is entitled to the essential amenity of Electricity so long as they continues being in possession of the suit property unless removed in accordance with law. The court further directed the Respondent No. 3 (BSES) to install the permanent connection in the premises with applicable tariffs charged from the Respondent no. 1 & 2.
12. Moreover, upon perusal of the record, we also note that the Appellant has instituted a civil suit for recovery of possession before the District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi. Be that as it may, since the present matter concerns the removal of the electricity connection installed pursuant to the impugned orders dated 18.07.2022 and 27.02.2023, we find that both the District Commission and the District Court, Tis Hazari, have rightly held that the occupier of the premises is entitled to the basic amenity of electricity, which was subsequently permanently restored on the directions of the District Court, Tis Hazari.
13. In view of the foregoing, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reason to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 18.07.2022 and 27.02.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, (Distt. North), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
14. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 9 FA/189/2023 MR. AJAY KUMAR GARG VS. MR. VISHNU YADAV D.O.D.: 01.12.2025
15. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
16. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
17. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On: 01.12.2025 LR-AJ DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 9