State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board Through ... vs Ramji Dass (Aged 40 Years) Son Of Sh. ... on 1 October, 2013
F.A. No. 1483 of 2008 1
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1483 of 2008
Date of institution: 24.12.2008
Date of decision : 01.10.2013
1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Additional
Superintending Engineer (Operation) Sub Urban Division, Moga.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, North Sub
Division Moga.
.....Appellant
Versus
Ramji Dass (aged 40 years) son of Sh. Charanji Lal, resident of Basti
Gobindgarh, Moga, Tehsil and District. Moga.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
31.10.2008 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga.
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Parvez Chugh, Advocate for Ms. P.K. Sekhon, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Vivek Goyal, Advocate PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:-
The appellants have filed this appeal against the order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") vide which the complaint of the complainant/respondent (hereinafter called "respondent") was accepted.
2. The electric connection of the respondent was checked on 04.02.2008 by Tarsem Lal, J.E. alongwith other officials of the appellants and found that the respondent was committing theft of energy by fixing the F.A. No. 1483 of 2008 2 direct wire near the meter and the energy was being used by bypassing the meter and the meter was not recording the consumption. The checking was made in the present of representative of the appellant who signed the checking report. Demand of Rs. 8127/- was raised vide memo No. 343 dated 14.02.2008 which was deposited by the respondent with the appellants without any protest on 17.03.2008. The amount was calculated on 30% factor. Thereafter clarification of Chief Engineer, PSEB, Patiala was received vide which in the theft cases, the amount was to be charged on the basis of 100% factor, as such on the basis of the audit report, additional demand of Rs. 66,882/- was raised as difference of the actual amount which was to be charged and already charged/deposited by the respondent on 17.03.2008 as theft charges as per The Electricity Act.
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. 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 respondent/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 appellants is accepted only on the point of jurisdiction and not on merits as the District Forum was F.A. No. 1483 of 2008 3 not having the jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The impugned order under appeal dated 31.10.2008 passed by the District Forum, Moga is set aside. The complaint of the respondent/complainant is also dismissed being not maintainable.
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 respondent/complainant and return the complaint to the complainant.
7. However, the respondent/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.
9. The order was reserved on 19.09.2013. 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 appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 1000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest F.A. No. 1483 of 2008 4 accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant No. 2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
12. 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
October 01, 2013 (Jasbir Singh Gill)
RK Member