State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Sudesh Kumari W/O Narinderpal vs Punjab State Electricity Board (Now ... on 18 September, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.631 of 2011
Date of Institution: 13.04.2011
Date of Decision: 18.09.2013
Smt. Sudesh Kumari w/o Narinderpal r/o House bearing Plot No. 227, Abadi
Rajinder Nagar, Amritsar.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board (now PSPCL) through its Chairman, Patiala
service through SDO East Sub Division, Amritsar.
......Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
18.03.2011 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Anil Chawla, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------- INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Smt. Sudesh Kumari, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. As per the pleadings/allegations of the respondents/opposite parties, the subject matter of this case is covered U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
First Appeal No.631 of 2011 2
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (C) No.35906 of 2011) titled as "U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs Anis Ahmad", decided on 1st July, 2013, dealt with the complaints filed against the assessment made U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or any action taken U/s 135 to 140 of the said Act and after detailed discussion, held as follows:-
"A complaint against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum".
4. Since the subject matter of this case is covered U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appeal as well as the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is not maintainable, as the District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter covered u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
5. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on merits, but as stated above, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant and, as such, the impugned order under appeal dated 18.03.2011passed by the District Forum, dismissing the complaint, is set aside.
6. If the appellant/complainant has deposited any amount at the time of filing the complaint with the PSEB (now PSPCL) by the orders of the District Forum, or with the orders of this Commission after filing the appeal, then the same shall be adjusted towards the demanded amount or may be First Appeal No.631 of 2011 3 considered as part of deposit, if the appellant/complainant moves the appropriate authority under the Electricity Act, 2003. In case, the appellant/complainant has deposited any amount with this Commission in the appeal, then the same along with interest accrued thereon if any shall be refunded to the appellant/complainant by the registry by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
7. The record of the District Forum, complete in all respects, be sent back to the District Forum immediately. The District Forum is directed to procure the presence of the appellant/complainant and then shall return the complaint to him for presenting it before the appropriate authority, if so advised.
8. The period spent while pursuing the complaint as well as this appeal shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.
9. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member September 18, 2013.
Kalyan First Appeal No.631 of 2011 4