State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity ... vs Bhagat Singh on 20 August, 2013
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No: 89/2011.
Date of Decision: 20.08.2013.
...................................................................................
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd.,
Through its Sr. Executive Engineer,
Electrical Division, Gohar, District Mandi, H.P.
... Appellant.
Versus
Bhagat Singh Son of Sh. Acchar Singh,
R/o Village and Post Office Sainj,
Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P.
... Respondent.
....................................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate vice
Mr. Abhishek Dogra, Advocate.
..............................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Present appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 14.01.2011, of learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby the appellants, who were impleaded as opposite parties in a complaint, filed by respondent Bhagat Singh, have been ordered to refund an amount of `19,810/- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
{2} charged from the respondent on the basis of a demand notice issued under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, and the said notice, whereby a total sum of `43,652/- had been demanded, has also been quashed and further a direction has been issued to the appellants to pay `3,000/- as compensation for harassment and `2,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. The matter was adjourned sine die, because of stay of all proceedings pertaining to theft/unauthorized use of electricity by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, pending disposal of certain Special Leave Petitions, arising out of a number of orders of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Those matters have now finally been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 01.07.2013, passed in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012, tilted U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Versus Anis Ahmad and several other connected matters.
3. Complaint was filed by the respondent, challenging notices, Annexure C-1 & C-2, whereby a demand for `43,642/- had been raised by the appellant/opposite parties on the plea that during an inspection carried out by a team of the opposite {3} parties at the residential premises of the respondent, where an electricity meter was installed, it was found that recording of consumption of power had been hampered by inserting an X-ray film and, thus, there was theft of electricity. Assessment was made in accordance with Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Respondent alleged that he was coerced to pay a sum of `19,810/- out of the aforesaid amount demanded through notices, Annexure C-1 & C-2, with the threat that supply of power to his premises shall be disconnected. He challenged the demand notices and prayed for quashing the same and also prayed for refund of the amount of `19,810/- already charged from him, besides seeking damages and praying for litigation expenses.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The matter pertains to theft of energy and demand was made by the appellants under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, as is made out from a reading of Annexure C-1 & C-2. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Versus Anis Ahmad and several other connected matters, has held that a person aggrieved by a notice, under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, {4} or the proceedings initiated under the said provision, cannot approach the Consumer Fora, established under the Consumer Protect Act, 1986, and the remedy available to him is to approach the Appellate Authority for setting aside/reversing the action under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and impugned order of learned District Forum set aside. As a sequel to allowing of the appeal, complaint filed by the complainant/respondent is dismissed.
6. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member August 20, 2013.
DC Dhiman)