State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Neetu Son Of Sh. Daya Ram, Resident Of Lal ... vs Assistant Executive Engineer (City), ... on 21 August, 2013
F.A. No. 96 of 2012 1
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 96 of 2012
Date of institution: 27.01.2012
Date of decision : 21.08.2013
Neetu son of Sh. Daya Ram, resident of Lal Chand M.C. Street Mansa.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Assistant Executive Engineer (City), Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, Mansa.
2. Secretary, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
27.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate For the respondents : Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER Neetu-appellant (in short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 27.12.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short "the District Forum") vide which his complaint was dismissed.
2. The meter of the appellant was replaced on the report of the Meter Reader. The meter of the appellant was checked on 23.09.2011 in the M.E. Lab, Bathinda. During the checking it was found that the block of the meter was intact, but the front side of the terminal block of the meter burnt intentionally and the appellant was committing theft of energy. On F.A. No. 96 of 2012 2 the basis of the checking report, a demand of Rs. 15,976/- was raised by the respondents vide memo No. 2624 dated 30.09.2011 as theft charges under section 126 of The Electricity Act.
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 appellant/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 appellant is dismissed 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 complaint of the appellant/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 appellant/complainant and return the complaint to the complainant.
7. However, the appellant/complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority as per The Electricity Act, 2003. F.A. No. 96 of 2012 3
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 arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.8.2013 and the order was reserved. 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.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
(Piare Lal Garg)
Member
August 21, 2013 (Jasbir Singh Gill)
RK Member
F.A. No. 96 of 2012 4