State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board, The ... vs Rajwinder Singh Son Of Manjeet Singh Son ... on 20 September, 2013
F.A. No. 307 of 2009 1
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 307 of 2009
Date of institution: 12.03.2009
Date of decision : 20.09.2013
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its
Secretary.
2. The XEN/SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Cantt. Sub
Division, Bathinda.
.....Appellants
Versus
Rajwinder Singh son of Manjeet Singh son of Bhag Singh, resident of
Mandior Colony, NFL, Bathinda
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
29.01.2009 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued By:-
For the appellants : None
For the respondent : Sh. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:-
The appellants have filed this appeal against the order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") vide which the complaint of the complainant/respondent (hereinafter called "respondent") was accepted.
2. The electricity connection bearing Account No. GR-150368-H was checked by Er. Pritpal Singh, S.D.O with R.C. Sharma, J.E. on 24.07.2008 which was running in the name of Manjeet Singh, father of the F.A. No. 307 of 2009 2 respondent who was using the same after the death of his father. During the checking, it was found that a magnate was lying on the meter and the appellant was controlling the reading of the actual consumption of the energy with the magnate. When the checking party entered in the house of the appellant, a girl had removed the magnate and took the same with her and flately refused to hand over the same to the checking party. The checking report was prepared at the spot but she also refused to sign the checking report. The respondent was committing theft of energy by affixing the magnate on the meter. On the basis of the checking report, demand of Rs. 35,191/- was raised vide memo No. 1285 dated 25.07.2008 as theft charges under section 126 of the Electricity Act.
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. 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 F.A. No. 307 of 2009 3 Hon'ble Supreme Court. The impugned order under appeal dated 29.01.2009 passed by the District Forum, Bathinda 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 18.09.2013. Now the order be communicated to the parties, free of cost.
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 appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 19,096/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with F.A. No. 307 of 2009 4 interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
12. 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
September 20, 2013 (Jasbir Singh Gill)
RK Member
F.A. No. 307 of 2009 5