State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Ashok Malhotra on 19 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2007
Date of Institution: 02.03.2007
Date of Decision: 19.08.2013
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The Mall,
Patiala.
2. Additional Superintending Engineer, Aggar Nagar Division
(Special), Punjab State Electricity Board, Ludhiana.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Ashok Malhotra (M.B.D.) Plot No.1, Sunder Nagar Colony,
Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. Legal heirs of Ashok Malhotra (1) Satish
Bala Malhotra (wife), (2) Ms.Monica Malhotra & (3) Mr.Sonica
Malhotra (daughters) C/o M.B.D. House Old Railway Road,
Jalandhar.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 14.12.2006 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:
For the appellants : None
For respondent : None
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties, against the order dated 14.12.2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly accepted and the demand raised by the opposite parties on account of First Appeal No. 326 of 2007 2 difference in tariff for domestic and construction purpose as well as for excess load used by the complainant was quashed.
2. The facts, which are necessary for adjudication for this appeal, are that the complainant is a consumer of the electric connection bearing account No.PH26/2274 and that he was making the payment of electricity bills for the consumption made by him regularly. The opposite parties issued a demand notice for Rs.91,244/- vide memo No.452 dated 22.3.2006 on the ground that he was using excess load i.e. 21.38 KWs. It was averred that the demand raised was illegal and without any basis.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written reply controverting the assertions made by the complainant. In fact the connection of the complainant was checked by Sr.Executive Engineer (Enforcement) No.1 PSEB, Ludhiana on 20.3.2006 vide ECR No.12/259 in the presence of Amrik Singh, who signed the checking report. It was found during the inspection that the said domestic connection was being used for office purpose as well as for construction purpose of the M.B.D. Complex. The impugned demand was raised by the opposite parties on the basis of the said inspection report.
4. After having gone through the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective averments and after hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have carefully gone through the records of the case. First Appeal No. 326 of 2007 3
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 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 Sr.Executive Engineer (Enforcement) No.1 PSEB, Ludhiana on 20.3.2006 as per ECR No.12/259 and it was found that the said domestic connection was being used for office purpose as well as for construction purpose of the M.B.D. Complex, which was not an authorized use of electricity and, thereafter, impugned notice was issued. That clearly implies that the opposite parties proceeded under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for making the assessment.
First Appeal No. 326 of 2007 4
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 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."First Appeal No. 326 of 2007 5
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 him does not fall within the purview of the Consumer 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 appellants/opposite parties is accepted, the order of the District Forum, partly accepting the complaint, is set aside and 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 him 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 arguments in the case were heard on 5.8.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
12. 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 August 19, 2013 VINAY