State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kamaldeep Wife Of Vikas Puri vs Pseb on 14 August, 2013
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.12 of 2008
Date of institution: 04.01.2008
Date of decision: 14.08.2013
Kamaldeep Wife of Vikas Puri, Shop No.5, City Center, Patiala.
.....Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, the Mall, Patiala.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
15.10.2007 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued By:-
For the appellant : None
For the respondent : Sh. H.S.Thiara, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER
Kamaldeep-appellant/complainant (in short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "the District Forum") vide which his complaint was dismissed.
2. A demand of Rs.65,470/- was raised by the appellant from the respondent vide memo No.37 dated 20.09.2006 under Section 126 of the Electricity Act on the basis of checking report dated 20.09.2006 and it was found that the appellant was committing theft of energy directly from the main supply line.
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 First Appeal No.12 of 2008 2 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.
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.
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.
First Appeal No.12 of 2008 3
9. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.8.2013 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 14, 2013 (Jasbir Singh Gill)
rs Member