State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board, vs Kirti Kumar on 23 November, 2013
F.A. No.265 of 2010 1
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.265 of 2010
Date of institution: 22.02.2010
Date of decision :23.11.2013
Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Addl. Superintending
Engineer/ Operation, PSEB, Civil Lines, Division, Amritsar.
.....Appellant
Versus
Kirti Kumar S/o Late Sh. Sain Dass, R/o 13-A, Tilak Nagar, Amritsar.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
1.12.2009 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
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. A.K.Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : None PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:-
The appellants have filed this appeal against the order dated 1.12.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum") vide which the complaint of the respondent was accepted.
2. The meter of the respondent was checked on 23.09.2008 which was found tampered. The respondent filed similar complaint earlier before the District Forum which was disposed of vide order dated 21.01.2009 with the direction to the appellant to get check the F.A. No.265 of 2010 2 meter from ME Lab in the presence of the respondent. The meter was checked in the ME lab vide report Ex.R-7 in the presence of the respondent. As per the ME Lab report one seal of the meter was found broken and one was tampered. The body of the meter was also tampered and re-fixed with some adhesive. The running of the meter was also tested which was running 50% slow. On the basis of the checking report, demand of Rs.53,569/- was raised vide memo Ex.C- 2 as theft charges under Section 126 of the Electricity Act.
3. The counsel for the appellant has made a statement on 07.11.2013 that the appeal may be disposed of as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court please to pass the following order regarding the assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or action taken under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act:-
"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. F.A. No.265 of 2010 3
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 not having the jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The impugned order under appeal dated 1.12.2009 passed by the District Forum, Amritsar 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 will be excluded under Section 14 of the limitation act, 1963 by the appropriate authority 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 case was adjourned on 07.11.2013 for further proceedings.
10. Now the order be communicated to the parties, free of cost.
11. 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 F.A. No.265 of 2010 4 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.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
13. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
(Piare Lal Garg)
Member
November 23, 2013 (Jasbir Singh Gill)
Rs Member