State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Radhey Shayam vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 14 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 470 OF 2008
Date of Institution: 14.05.2008
Date of Decision: 14.08.2013
Radhey Shayam son of Shri Sukhdial, resident of Kotkapura, Chowk,
Muktsar, Tehsil and District Muktsar.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board, through its:
1. Executive Engineer (Operation Division), Muktsar, Distt.
Muktsar.
2. Asstt. Executive Engineer, City, Sub Division, Muktsar, Distt.
Muktsar.
...Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 16.4.2008 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:
For the appellant : None
For respondents : None
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 16.4.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "District Forum"), vide which his complaint was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant, in his complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum, challenged a demand notice dated 8.11.2007 issued by the opposite parties for demanding a sum of First Appeal No. 470 of 2008 2 Rs.42,151/- from him against electric connection bearing account No.BB87/506 installed at his hair dressing shop. This demand was raised on the basis of checking done on 7.11.2007 on the allegation of theft of energy. It was pleaded that he never tampered the meter for committing theft of energy and his meter was never checked in his presence.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties contested the complaint and filed written reply pleading therein that the connection of the complainant was checked on 7.11.2007 by flying squad in the presence of the complainant and he was found committing theft of energy by tampering seals and circuit of the meter. Copy of the checking report was given to the complainant at the spot but he refused to append his signatures on it. On the basis of this report, a demand letter dated 8.11.2007 was rightly and legally issued.
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 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:- First Appeal No. 470 of 2008 3
"(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 when the inspection was made, he was found committing theft of energy by tampering seals and circuit of the meter, which was not authorized by them and that thereafter the impugned notice was issued. That clearly implies 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 "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 First Appeal No. 470 of 2008 4 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 Act. 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 First Appeal No. 470 of 2008 5 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 this case were heard on 6.8.2013 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 14, 2013 VINAY