State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ranjeet Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 10 September, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1012 OF 2009
Date of Institution: 17.07.2009
Date of Decision: 10.09.2013
Ranjeet Singh son of Sh.Gurnam Singh resident of Village Dakala,
Tehsil and District Patiala.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall,
Patiala.
2. Assistant Engineering, Operation Sub-Divisional, Sullar,
Punjab State Electricity Board District Patiala.
...Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 19.5.2009 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellant : None
For the respondents : None
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 19.5.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "District Forum"), vide which his complaint was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant was having a domestic electric connection, bearing account First Appeal No. 1012 of 2009 2 No.P14DF041195X and he had been making the payment of the bills regularly. The status of the meter had been OK and all the seals of the meter installed in his premises were intact. However, opposite parties issued a bill dated 30.1.2009 for an amount of Rs.58,740/- towards sundry charges, which was wrong and illegal. He represented opposite parties that he had committed no default, therefore, they had no right to demand impugned amount but the same was declined. Therefore, he filed complaint before the District Forum challenging the aforesaid demand.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed written reply pleading therein that the connection of the complainant was checked by Sr.Executive Engineer Enforcement on 8.5.2006 and it was detected that he was committing theft of energy by making Kundi connection from 24 hours transformer, which was installed on the Rice Sheller's gate. He was afforded an opportunity to file the objection against the provisional assessment order but when he failed to do so and thereafter the final assessment order was passed. The dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. After having gone through the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective averments and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.
5. We have carefully gone through the records of the case.
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 First Appeal No. 1012 of 2009 3 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 party that the connection of the complainant was checked on 8.5.2006 and he was found committing theft of energy by making Kundi connection from 24 hours transformer, which was installed on the Rice Sheller's gate. It was an unauthorised use of electricity. The opposite parties proceeded under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by making provisional and thereafter the final assessment.
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 First Appeal No. 1012 of 2009 4 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."
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 First Appeal No. 1012 of 2009 5 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 appellant/complainant is dismissed, the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint on merits, is set aside 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 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 (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER September 10, 2013 VINAY