State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Punjab State Electricity Board vs Sushil Kumar Son Of Sh. Kundan Lal on 14 August, 2013
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.103 of 2008
Date of institution: 06.02.2008
Date of decision: 14.08.2013
1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall,
Patiala.
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board sub Division,
Malout, Distt. Muktsar.
3. Asstt. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board City Sub
Division, Malout, Distt. Muktsar.
.....Appellant
Versus
Sushil Kumar son of Sh. Kundan Lal Resident of Chhabra Mohalla, Village
Malout, Tehsil Malout, Distt. Muktsar.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 1.6.2007
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran,
Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued By:-
For the appellant : None
For the respondent : Ex-parte
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER
Punjab State Electricity Board and another/opposite parties-appellants (in short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 1.6.2007 (wrongly mentioned as 28.08.2007 in the memorandum of the appeal) passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "the District First Appeal No.103 of 2008 2 Forum") (wrongly mentioned as District Forum 'Malout' in the memorandum of the appeal).
2. As per Notice dated 11.07.2006 a demand of Rs.2,74,732/- was raised as the respondent/complainant was committing theft of energy by which was detected at the time of inspection dated 6.6.2006.
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 1.6.2007 passed by the District Forum, Muktsar is set First Appeal No.103 of 2008 3 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 13.8.2013. Now the order be communicated to the parties, free of cost.
10. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.1500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
11. 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 First Appeal No.103 of 2008 4 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.
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
August 14, 2013 (Jasbir Singh Gill)
rs Member