Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 3]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Punjab State Electricity Board Limited ... vs Mahavir Singh on 2 September, 2013

                                    FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

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


                     First Appeal No.627 of 2007.


                                 Date of Institution:    07.05.2007.
                                 Date of Decision:       02.09.2013.


Punjab State Electricity Board through it's :-

   1. Senior Executive Engineer Operation Division Malout, District
      Muktsar.
   2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Sub Urban Sub
      Divisional Malout, Tehsil and District Muktsar.

                                                          .....Appellants.
                           Versus

Mahavir Singh son of S.Jarnail Singh, resident of Street No.2, Preet
Nagar Malout, Tehsil and District Muktsar.

                                                        ...Respondent.

                                 First Appeal against the order dated
                                 23.02.2007 of the District Consumer
                                 Disputes      Redressal      Forum,
                                 Muktsar.
Before:-

             Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

................................... Present:- Sh.Parminder Singh, Advocate for Sh.Rajesh K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the appellants.

None for the respondent.

---------------------------------------- INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

Punjab State Electricity Board and another, appellants (In short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated First Appeal No.627 of 2007 2 23.02.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "the District Forum").

2. As per the pleadings/allegations, the subject matter of this case is covered U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

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. Since the subject matter of this case is covered U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and, 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, as the District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter covered u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

5. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 23.02.2007 passed by the District Forum is set aside.

6. The appellant No.1 had deposited an amount of Rs.1,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the First Appeal No.627 of 2007 3 registry to the appellant No.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.

7. If the respondent/complainant has deposited any amount at the time of filing the complaint with the PSEB (now PSPCL) by the orders of the District Forum or of this Commission, then the same shall be adjusted towards the demanded amount or may be considered as part of deposit, if the respondent/complainant moves the appropriate authority against the demand in question. In case, the amount is lying deposited with the District Forum, then at the time of returning the complaint, the District Forum shall pass appropriate order qua that amount.

8. 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 then shall return the complaint for presenting it before the appropriate authority, if so advised.

9. The period spent while pursuing the complaint as well as this appeal shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

10. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.

(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member September 2, 2013.

(Lata)