State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chana Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 12 September, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1106 OF 2009
Date of Institution: 4.8.2009
Date of Decision: 12.09.2013
Chana Singh son of Resham Singh, resident of village Mallanwala,
Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The
Mall, Patiala.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub
Division, Mallanwala, Tehsil Zira, District, Ferozepur.
.....Respondents/opposite parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 4.6.2009 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellant : Sh. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for modification of the order dated 4.6.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by him was partly allowed and opposite parties were directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony, pain and harassment suffered by him and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Facts of the case are that the complainant was having a domestic electric connection bearing account no.M27MN590315M. First Appeal No. 1106 of 2009 2 His father, Resham Singh is living in the house opposite to his house and was having a separate meter bearing account no.MN59/315. On 21.1.2009 the officers of the opposite parties visited his house and disconnected his electric meter in his absence. They even misbehaved with his minor son. On 22.1.2009, he approached the opposite party no.2 and inquired about the matter and he was told that some amount was outstanding against the electricity meter of his father and as such, his electric meter was disconnected. Alleging deficiency in service, he filed complaint before the District Forum seeking direction that his electric connection be ordered to be restored .
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed joint written reply pleading therein that the connection of the complainant was checked by Er. Surinder Singh, S.D.O., P.S.E.B., Mallanwala and others on 21.1.2009 and both the ME seals of the meter, bearing serial no.09983, were found tampered with and it was further found that some arrears of "penalty and consumption charges", were outstanding against the premises in which the meter, in question, was installed. The connection of the complainant was disconnected at the spot and the meter was packed.
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 District Forum vide aforesaid order.
5. We have carefully gone through the records of the case.
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 First Appeal No. 1106 of 2009 3 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 the
connection of the complainant was checked by Engineer Surinder Singh, S.D.O., P.S.E.B., Mallanwala and others on 21.1.2009 and both the ME seals of the meter, bearing serial no.09983, were found tampered with and it was further found that some arrears of penalty and consumption charges were outstanding against the premises in which the meter, in question, was installed. The connection of the complainant was disconnected at the spot and the meter was got packed.
It is thus clear that the complainant was proceeded against as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
8. It has recently been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. v. ANIS AHMAD [2013(13) C.L.T. 226] that the Electricity Act, 2003 and the First Appeal No. 1106 of 2009 4 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."
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 her does not fall within the purview of the Consumer First Appeal No. 1106 of 2009 5 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 and the order of the District Forum, allowing the complaint on merit, is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed 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 her 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 September 12, 2013 SONIA