JUDGMENT - W.M. SAMBRE, President :---Mr. S.S. Thakur for the complainant present and states that he be granted permission to adduce evidence. His request cannot be granted for the reasons that the complaint has already taken recourse to the Civil Court and has obtained the injunction as regards the disconnection of the electric supply. He has also stated in his memorandum that he is reserving his right on either points to agitate before proper authority. He contended that the electric supply was made to the complainants hotel and after a period of two years he received a notice wherein it is stated that the energy is being consumed in excess than the agreement reached. He also contended that a threat was given that his electric connection will be disconnected. Therefore, he approached the Civil Court and obtained a temporary injunction. Simultaneously, he filed the complainant before this Forum wherein he has claimed Rs. 3,15,000/- on various counts with the interest @ Rs. 21% P.A. It is the contention of the complainant that even though he has taken recourse to the Civil Court for obtaining injunction he can agitate the matter about the compensation on various counts before this Forum. He complained that he has been harassed by the M.S.E.B., unnecessarily and therefore he has been put to a great loss even though he has deposited the amount of Rs. 1,12,620/- on 4-3-1990. He is running a hotel which is having 28 rooms and has invested Rs. thirty lakhs for the construction of this hotel. To avoid loss to the complainant he was compelled to file a civil suit having No. 500/92 wherein he has obtained temporary injunction against the respondent. He also contended that this disconnection threat was intentional on the part of the respondent. There was delay in sanctioning the loan and therefore, opening of the hotel itself was delayed. He claims that he was sustained a loss because of delayed opening to the tune of Rs. 55,000/- He also contended that the amount of Rs. 1,11,620/- was collected by the respondent was in fact not on proper assessment and, therefore, he claims the accounts for the said amount. The complainant also claims the compensation of Rs. 3,15,000/- from the opposite party. 55,000/- He also contended that the amount of Rs. 1,11,620/- was collected by the respondent was in fact not on proper assessment and, therefore, he claims the accounts for the said amount. The complainant also claims the compensation of Rs. 3,15,000/- from the opposite party. The learned Counsel is making grievance about the delay as the matter was pending before this Forum in 6 of 1992 and he would no be able to agitate the matter before the Civil Court. We did not want to spell out anything on the subject as the counsel is fully prepared to face all the consequences and overcome the difficulties about the limitation whatsoever it may be. Therefore it is open to him to satisfy the appropriate authorities in view of the pendency of this complaint before this Commission. Now as regards the maintainability of the complaint we are of the opinion that the appellant has already taken recourse to Civil Court and quantum of compensation will have to be established by the claimant on the compensation and on other counts by adducing evidence. Once the fact that he has already taken recourse to the Civil Court then all these points regarding compensation, damages or whatsoever may be, can be agitated before the Civil Court and establish by adducing evidence in detail to the satisfaction of the Court. This Commission will not be able to go into details and record the evidence for arriving at the quantum of compensation on various counts claimed by the complainant. As already stated that the complainant has already moved to Civil Court and therefore we are not inclined to entertain this complaint which stands dismissed. The complainant will be at liberty to take recourse to the proper Court. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. *****