State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sukhdev Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 1 August, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.320 of 2012
Date of Institution: 15.03.2012
Date of Decision: 01.08.2013.
Sukhdev Singh son of Mohan Singh son of Mal Singh r/o Hathoa,
Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, The
Mall, Patiala through its Chief Managing Director.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, Rural Sub Division Malerkotla, Tehsil
Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
.....Respondents.
First Appeal against the order
dated 30.11.2011 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
................................... Present:- Ms. Jatinder Kaur, Advocate for Sh. G.S.Nahel, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
---------------------------------------- INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Sh. Sukhdev Singh, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, First Appeal No. 320 of 2012 2 Sangrur (in short "the District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. As per the pleadings/allegations of the respondents/opposite parties, 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 appeal as well as the complaint filed by the appellant/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. There is no need to issue notice to the respondents as neither the complaint nor the appeal is maintainable in view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on First Appeal No. 320 of 2012 3 merits, but as stated above, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant and, as such, the impugned order under appeal dated 30.11.2011 passed by the District Forum, dismissing the complaint, is set aside.
6. If the appellant/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 with the orders of this Commission after filing the appeal, then the same shall be adjusted towards the demanded amount or may be considered as part of deposit, if the appellant/complainant moves the appropriate authority under the Electricity Act, 2003. In case, the appellant/complainant has deposited any amount with this Commission in the appeal, then the same along with interest accrued thereon if any shall be refunded to the appellant/complainant by the registry by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
7. The District Forum is directed to procure the presence of the appellant/complainant and then shall return the complaint to him 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 August 01, 2013.
Kalyan First Appeal No. 320 of 2012 4 1st Addl. Bench Misc. Appl. No. 530 of 2012 In/and First Appeal No. 320 of 2012 Present:
For the appellant : Ms. Jatinder Kaur, Advocate for Sh. G.S.Nahel, Advocate M.A. No. 530 of 2012 (Delay) :
This appeal was filed with delay of 76 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed in which reasons have been given which caused the delay in filing the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit.
In view of the reasons given in the application and in the interest of justice, so that the matter is decided on merits, this application is accepted and the delay of 76 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Disposed of.
Main Case :
Vide separate order of today, the appeal has been dismissed.
Presiding Judicial Member Member August 01, 2013 KK