State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Prem Lata vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 10 October, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2009
Date of Institution: 19.06.2009
Date of Decision: 10.10.2013
Smt.Prem Lata aged about 58 years wife of Sh.Vijay Kumar resident
of Street Mata Rani Jaitu District Faridkot.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The Mall,
PSEB, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Sub Division, PSEB,
Jaitu, District Faridkot.
...Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 29.4.2009 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Faridkot.
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 29.4.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short "District Forum"), vide which her complaint was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant was having a domestic electric connection bearing account No.BB-26- First Appeal No. 844 of 2009 2 0529, which was installed at her premises. She received letter No.3755 dated 26.9.2008 from opposite party No.2 in which a demand of Rs.96,404/- was raised on account of alleged theft of electric energy. However, no details of the checking carried out were mentioned in the said letter except that the theft case was declared in the ME Lab Report. No copy of the alleged checking report was supplied to her. She filed the complaint before the District Forum challenging the said demand of Rs.96,404/-.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed written reply in which they pleaded that notice No.3755 dated 26.9.2008 was issued in pursuance of the checking of the meter in the ME Lab on 22.9.2008, where it was found that the reading of the meter had been tampered with on the basis of which the impugned demand was raised and prior to that checking, four notices were sent to the complainant informing her that the meter will be got checked in her presence but she failed to turn up.
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 assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he is required to provisionally First Appeal No. 844 of 2009 3 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 meter of the complainant was checked in the ME Lab on 22.9.2008 and it was found that reading of the meter had been tampered with. Accordingly, the impugned demand was raised. That clearly shows that the opposite parties proceeded under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for making the 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 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 First Appeal No. 844 of 2009 4 "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 her 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 appellant/complainant is dismissed, the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint First Appeal No. 844 of 2009 5 on merits, is set aside without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to seek her appropriate remedy before the proper authority under the Electricity Act, 2003. The time spent by her 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 October 10, 2013 VINAY