State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Jagdev Singh on 26 September, 2013
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1173 of 2011
Date of institution: 4.8.2011
Date of Decision :26.9.2013
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through Chief Engineer,
Opposite GNDTP, Bathinda.
2. AEE/SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub
Division, Goniana Mandi
3. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,,
Bathinda.
.....Appellants/opposite parties
Versus
Jagdev Singh S/o Harchand Singh, aged about 55 years, resident of Ward
No. 5, Near Bus Stand, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
.....Respondent/Complainant
Argued By:-
For the appellants : Sh. Manoj Dhingra,Advocate for
Sh. J.S. Randhawa, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Pankaj Katia, Advocate
First Appeal against the order dated 18.5.2011
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter called "the opposite parties") have filed the present appeal against the order dated 18.5.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda(hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 532 dated 22.11.2010 vide which the District Forum has allowed the complaint of the complainant and the demand First Appeal No. 1173 of 2011 2 raised through memo No. 2174 dated 12.11.2010 for Rs. 1,85,022/- was quashed. The complainant has already deposited Rs. 66,000/- vide receipt No. 392 dated 1.12.2010, the opposite parties were directed to refund this amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') on the allegations that the complainant is having electricity connection bearing A/c No. B-93/GN170354H under DS category. He received memo No. 2174 dated 12.11.2010 demanding Rs. 1,85,022/- on the basis of checking report dated 11.11.2010 on the grounds that no checking was done in his presence or in the presence of his representative. The reading of 52696 unit recorded is unbelievable because in the last bill prior to the alleged checking, the reading was recorded as 18350 units as on 25.9.2010, therefore, the demand raised by the opposite parties is illegal. Hence, the complaint.
3. Whereas the complaint was contested by the opposite parties taking plea that on 11.11.2010, the checking was conducted by the officials of the opposite party in his premises and during checking it was observed that the meter is showing reading as 52596 units whereas in the bill dated 9/2010 the meter reading was 18350 units and found that there is a huge difference between both the readings. They further found that the complainant is indulging in unauthorised abstraction of electricity resulting in theft of power. The complainant in connivance with Meter Reader had kept the actual consumption unrecorded. He was using excess load than the First Appeal No. 1173 of 2011 3 sanctioned load and accordingly, it was stated that the demand raised by the opposite parties is correct and justified.
4. Both the parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. On the basis of the allegations in the complaint, written statement, evidence and documents brought on the record, it was observed by the learned District Forum in the impugned order that the meter of the complainant is installed outside his premises in the box. The M.E. Lab report shows that the last notice was given to the complainant to appear before the M.E. Lab for checking of his meter, however, no notice was placed on the record. Perusal of the checking report Ex. R-6 shows that the working of the meter "the disc of the meter is running in the correct direction". There is no MCB and MTC and difference in the reading of the meter. It was further observed that "mechanical meter has been installed in the premises of the consumer and there is hole in front of the body of the meter and meter reading is 15350 units in bill dated 9/2010 but on the date of checking its reading was found to be 52596 and there is a huge difference. The meter was packed and sent to M.E. Lab. Whereas the report shows that the meter number of the complainant is 1089809 whereas the meter checked was 1089889, therefore, the report does not pertain to the meter in dispute. Accordingly, the learned District Forum found merit in the complaint and it was accepted and the demand raised by the opposite party was quashed and the complaint was allowed as stated above.
First Appeal No. 1173 of 2011 4
6. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants/opposite parties have filed the present appeal.
7. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellants that there are allegations of theft of energy. The premises of the complainant were checked and there is just one clerical mistake with the Meter number and the learned District Forum ignored the report merely because of the difference of one digit in the meter number, which seems to be clerical mistake, therefore, in the case of theft of energy, the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction as held by 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, observed as under:-
"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".
8. Whereas the counsel for the respondent has stated that report does not pertain to the complainant and that it is not a case of theft of energy.
9. The checking report Ex. R-2 shows that it is a case of theft of energy except difference of one digit in the meter number whereas other particulars tally and merely because of that it cannot First Appeal No. 1173 of 2011 5 be said that the report does not pertain to the complaint. In the case of theft of energy, in view of the above referred judgment, the District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint should have been returned for want of jurisdiction. The respondent could not rebut this judgment, accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted only on the point of jurisdiction and not on merits as the District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The impugned order under appeal dated 18.5.2011 passed by the District Forum, Bathinda is set aside. The complaint of the respondent/complainant is also dismissed being not maintainable.
10. 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.
11. However, the respondent/complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority as per The Electricity Act, 2003.
12. 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.
13. The order was reserved on 20.9.2013. Now the order be communicated to the parties free of cost.
14. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of First Appeal No. 1173 of 2011 6 Rs. 25,000/- with 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 under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
15. 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.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
September 26, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member