State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Som Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 22 August, 2013
2nd ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.293 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 12.03.2012.
Date of Decision: 22.08.2013.
Som Singh aged about 63 years son of Late Sh.Chanan Ram,
resident of H.No.215, Ward No.2, Haridass colony, Nabha, District
Patiala.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala
through its Secretary.
2. AEE, Operation City Sub Division, Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, Nabha, District Patiala.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order
dated 19.12.2011 of 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.
...................................
Present:- Sh.Aminder Singh, Advocate
-------- ------------
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:-
M.A. for condonation of delay This appeal was filed with delay of 36 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. Reasons have been given in the application, which caused delay in filing the First Appeal No.293 of 2012 2 appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit. In view of the reasons given in the application, this application is accepted and the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Misc. Application stands disposed of.
Main case
2. Sh.Som Singh, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "the District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed.
3. The electric connection of the appellant was checked by Sh.Ashok Kumar Goyal, AE alongwith Sh.Santokh Singh JE on 07.11.2009 in the presence of the appellant and found that the appellant was committing theft of energy from the naked joint of main 2/C (two core) PVC wire having taken the supply to the house directly. Memo No.1532 dated 19.11.2009 was issued vide which demand of Rs.18,002/- as theft charges and Rs.9,000/- as compounding charges was raised under section 126 of Electricity Act.
4. 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:-
First Appeal No.293 of 2012 3
"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".
5. 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.
6. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on 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 appeal of the appellant is dismissed. Consequently, the complaint is also dismissed being not maintainable.
7. 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 First Appeal No.293 of 2012 4 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.
8. 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.
9. 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. vs. National Insurance Co. and others", (2004)13 SCC 656.
10. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.08.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties, free of cost.
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 22,2013 (J.S.Gill)
Lb/- Member