State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramesh Kumar vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 4 October, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 938 OF 2009
Date of Institution: 06.07.2009
Date of Decision: 04.10.2013
Ramesh Kumar son of Deep Chand resident of Mission Ground House
No.212, Street No.3, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar, Tehsil & District
Muktsar.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board through its:-
1. Senior Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Muktsar.
2. SDO/AEE, Operation City Sub Division, Muktsar.
...Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 10.3.2009 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellant : None
For the respondents : Sh.R.K.Sharma, Advocate
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 10.3.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "District Forum"), vide which his complaint was dismissed.
2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was using electricity connection bearing account No.Y62GC620030M, installed in the name of Harbans Singh S/o First Appeal No. 938 of 2009 2 Amar Singh, from whom he purchased the property in 1995. The opposite parties conducted a checking on 26.8.2008 and levelled allegations of theft of energy against him, and thereafter issued letter dated 27.8.2008 demanding Rs.88,873/-. The complainant visited the office of the opposite parties, who threatened that if he failed to deposit this amount, his connection would be disconnected. Thereafter, he deposited Rs.20,000/- through cheque with the opposite parties. The demand of the opposite parties was illegal as no details of the amount claimed were given. Even no notice was served upon him regarding the alleged checking. Thus, he filed the complaint before the District Forum challenging the aforesaid demand.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed written reply in which they averred that a team comprising of Assistant Executive Engineer, Gurtej Singh, JE and Gurdev Singh Foreman inspected the connection of the complainant on 26.8.2008 in his presence and found that he was controlling the consumption by the meter by placing magnet on the counter of the meter. Magnet was taken into possession. Inspection report was prepared on the spot but the complainant refused to sign the same. On the basis of this checking report the impugned demand was raised, out of which Rs.20,000/- were deposited by the complainant willingly. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. After having gone through the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective averments and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.
5. We have carefully gone through the records of the case. First Appeal No. 938 of 2009 3
6. According to Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he is required to provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person. As per the explanation appended to that Section, unauthorized use of electricity means the usage of electricity:-
"(i) by any artificial means; or
(ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or
authority or licensee; or
(iii) through a tampered meter; or
(iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of
electricity was authorised; or
(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the
supply of electricity was authorised."
7. It is the specific averment of the opposite parties that connection of the complainant was checked on 26.8.2008 and it was found that he was controlling the consumption of his meter by placing magnet on the counter of the meter, which was not an authorised use of electricity. Thereafter, the impugned demand was raised. That clearly shows that the opposite parties proceeded under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for making the assessment.
8. It has recently been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. ANIS AHMAD First Appeal No. 938 of 2009 4 [2013(13) C.L.T. 226] that the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or "if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service"; or "hazardous service"; or "the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law". After having dealt in detail about the different provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"(i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of "service" as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or "complaint" as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(ii) 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."First Appeal No. 938 of 2009 5
9. In view of the law so laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complainant cannot be held to be a "consumer" and the complaint filed by him does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The same could not have been entertained by the District Forum and was to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is dismissed, the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint on merits, is set aside without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to seek his appropriate remedy before the proper authority under the Electricity Act, 2003. The time spent by him before the District Forum and in this Commission while prosecuting the complaint and the appeal shall be excluded by that authority while computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal etc.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER October 04, 2013 VINAY