State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kiran Goel Wife Of Sh. Rajiv Goel, vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 15 January, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 532 of 2011
Date of institution: 24.3.2011
Date of Decision : 15.1.2014
Kiran Goel wife of Sh. Rajiv Goel, owner of 12-A, City Centre, Patiala,
resident of Kothi No. 2, Mayur Enclave, Bhupindra Road, Patiala.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through Chairman,
Managing Committee (Powerco and Transco), The Mall, Patiala.
2. Senior XEN Operation, West Division, Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, Patiala.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Argued By:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents : Sh. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate
First Appeal against the order dated
16.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala(hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 323 dated 5.5.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 532 OF 2011 2
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties on the allegations that he had domestic electric connection in her name in Flat No. 12-A, City Centre, Near 22 No. Phatak, Patiala with Account No. MT 260977. On 28.8.2009, certain officials of the opposite parties checked the meter and then it was checked in the M.E. Lab on 25.9.2009. It was found M&T seals were tampered with. The demand raised by the respondents of Rs. 47,720/- is illegal, null and void.
3. Whereas the complaint was contested by the opposite parties, taking preliminary objections that the complaint is barred under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and that the Consumer Fora does not vest with the jurisdiction to try this complaint. In fact on 28.8.2009, Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement alongwith other staff checked the connection of the complainant and it was slow by 87% and there was no MCB seal, therefore, it was required to be inspected by the M.E. Lab. It was sent there and was checked in the presence of the husband of the complainant Rajiv Goel and it was alleged that the complainant was committing theft of electricity, accordingly, a bill of Rs. 47,720/- was raised against the complainant and he is liable to pay the amount. There is no merit in the complaint and the same be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, provisional order Ex. C- 2, letter Ex. C-3. On the other hand, the opposite parties had FIRST APPEAL NO. 532 OF 2011 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Jatinder Garg, SDO, Commercial East Division, Patiala Ex. R-1, affidavit of Er. Sanjay Mittal, SE, Enforcement-I, PSEB, Patiala Ex. R-2, affidavit of Er. Avtar Singh, J.E. Ex. R-3, affidavit of Er. Jaskaran Singh, AEE, M.E. Lab, Sub Division, PSPCL, Patiala Ex. R-4, Enforcement checking report Ex. R-5, M.E. Lab report Ex. R-6, provisional assessment order Ex. R-7, objections against provisional assessment order Ex. R-8, letter to complainant Ex. R-9.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum did not see any merit in the complaint and the same was dismissed.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents Sh. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate.
9. Before touching to the other contentions as raised in the bill, it is to be seen whether the Consumer Fora has the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment "U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs Anis Ahmad", 2013(3) CLT 226 (SC) observed that in case assessment has been made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Act, then the complaint before the District Forum is not maintainable. In view of the judgment "U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs Anis Ahmad"(supra), the appeal FIRST APPEAL NO. 532 OF 2011 4 filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed with the observations that the learned District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in case the assessment has been made under Section 126 of the Act or the action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Act with a liberty to approach the Appropriate Authority under the Act.
11. However, the complainant pursued his complaint with the bonafide that the Consumer Fora has the jurisdiction, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Trai Foods Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. and others", (2004) 13 SCC 656, the time spent in pursuing the complaint before the learned District Forum and appeal before the State Commission will be excluded by the appropriate authority; in case any application is made before the appropriate authority after computing the period of limitation. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the complainant/appellant is dismissed with the observation that the Consumer Fora does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint/appeal, therefore, the learned District Forum is requested to return the complaint to the appellant/complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate authority.
12. In case any amount is lying deposited with the District Forum, it will pass an appropriate order at the time of returning the complaint to the complainant.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.1.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 532 OF 2011 5
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
January 15, 2014. (Vinod Kumar Gupta)
as Member