State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Jiwan Singh on 3 December, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 475 of 2010
Date of Institution: 25.03.2010
Date of Decision : 03.12.2013
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.
2. SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sarai Banjara Division, Tehsil
Rajpura, District Patiala.
.....Appellants.
Versus
Jiwan Singh son of Late Sh. Teja Singh, resident of village Alluana, Tehsil
Rajpura, District Patiala.
......Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
22.01.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for Dr. P.K.Sekhon, 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 22.01.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "the District Forum").First Appeal No. 475 of 2010 2
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 22.01.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside.
6. 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, First Appeal No. 475 of 2010 3 then at the time of returning the complaint, the District Forum shall pass appropriate order qua that amount.
7. 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.
8. The period spent while pursuing the complaint as well as this appeal shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.
9. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member December 03, 2013.
Kalyan First Appeal No. 475 of 2010 4