State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, ... vs Smt. Renu Arora Wife Of Prem Kumar (Late) ... on 8 October, 2013
F.A. No. 334 of 2009 1
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 334 of 2009
Date of institution: 17.03.2009
Date of decision : 08.10.2013
1. S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division East
Batala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.
2. Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala.
.....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Renu Arora wife of Prem Kumar (late) resident of Shastri Nagar
Batala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
12.01.2009 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Gurdaspur.
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. H.S. Thiara, Advocate For the respondent : None PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:-
The appellants/O.Ps (hereinafter called "appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 12.01.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") vide which the complaint of the complainant/respondent (hereinafter called "respondent") was accepted.F.A. No. 334 of 2009 2
2. The electric connection bearing No. MT-58/0242 was installed in the name of deceased Prem Kumar husband of the respondent who was running Dhaba at Shastri Nagar, Batala. It was alleged by the respondent that after the death of her husband the same was being run by her to earn her livelihood. The bills were being paid by the respondent regularly. The respondent received a memo of demand on 06.06.2008 vide which demand of Rs. 1,62,033/- was raised as theft charges. The demand of the appellants was wrong and illegal. On the other hand, the version of the appellants is that flying squad of the appellants checked the electric connection in the presence of respondent on 29.03.2008 and found that the respondent was committing theft of energy by taking direct supply from the main PVC wire by bypassing the meter. The demand of Rs. 1,62,033/- was raised as theft charges vide memo No. 476 dated 03.04.2008 from Prem Kumar as the respondent had not got transferred the meter in her name after the death of her husband Parveen Kumar under section 126 of The Electricity Act as theft charges.
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 F.A. No. 334 of 2009 3 Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum".
4. The subject matter of this case is covered U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is not maintainable and the District Forum was not having the jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.
5. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted only on the point of jurisdiction and not on merits as the District Forum was not having the jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The impugned order under appeal dated 12.01.2009 passed by the District Forum, Gurdaspur is set aside. The complaint of the respondent/complainant is also dismissed being not maintainable.
6. 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 respondent/complainant and return the complaint to the complainant.
7. However, the respondent/complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority as per The Electricity Act, 2003.
8. The period spent while pursuing the complaint before the District Forum as well as in this appeal is excluded for the purpose of limitation as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Trai Foods Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. and others", (2004) 13 SCC 656.
9. The order was reserved on 01.10.2013. Now the order be communicated to the parties, free of cost.
F.A. No. 334 of 2009 4
10. If the respondent/complainant had deposited any amount to comply with the interim order of the District Forum or the State Commission with the PSEB (now PSPCL) then the same shall be adjusted towards the demand in dispute or the said amount may be considered as part of deposit, which is required to be deposited as per Section 127 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for preferring the appeal against the demand made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Appellate Authority(prescribed). If the amount is lying deposited with the District Forum then the District Forum shall pass appropriate order qua the amount at the time of returning the complaint to the complainant.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
(Piare Lal Garg)
Member
October 08, 2013 (Jasbir Singh Gill)
RK Member