Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

The Punjab State Electricity Board ... vs Jagjit Singh Son Of Jaimal Singh, on 19 July, 2013

                                                                                     1

First Appeal No.1474 of 2007

                                                                   2nd Addl. Bench

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
        SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

                               First Appeal No.1474 of 2007
                                                Date of institution : 07.11.2007
                                                Date of Decision : 19.07.2013

     1. The Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall Patiala.
     2. Executive Engineer, Malout, Distt. Muktsar.
     3. Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Sub Division, Malout, Distt.
        Muktsar.
                                                                   ...Appellants

                                     Versus

Jagjit Singh son of Jaimal Singh, resident of village and Post office Chhapian
Wali, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.

                                                                   ...Respondent

                                     First Appeal against the order dated
                                     30.07.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes
                                     Redressal Forum, Muktsar.

Before:-

               Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.

Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.

Present:-

        For the appellant            :     Sh. H.S.Thiara, Advocate
        For respondents              :     None


PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:

Punjab State Electricity Board and another/opposite parties- appellants(in short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "the District Forum").

2. As per memo No.3023 dated 10.10.2006 a demand of Rs. 69178/- was raised as the respondent/complainant was committing theft of energy by tampering the seals of the meter.

First Appeal No.1474 of 2007

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 Hon'ble Supreme Court. The impugned order under appeal dated 30.07.2007 passed by the District Forum, Muktsar 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.

First Appeal No.1474 of 2007

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 17.7.2013. 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 appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

                                                   (Piare Lal Garg)
                                                  Presiding Member



July 19, 2013.                                    (Jasbir Singh Gill)
rs                                                    Member