State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Gurcharan Singh on 23 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1233 OF 2008
Date of Institution: 23.10.2008
Date of Decision: 23.08.2013
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall,
Patiala.
2. Senior Executive Engineer, PSEB, City Division, Barnala.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer (Operation), PSEB, Sub Division,
Dhanaula No.1.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Gurcharan Singh son of Inder Singh resident of Village Dhanaula
Kalan, Tehsil and District Barnala.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 17.9.2008 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellants : None
For respondent : None
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties, against the order dated 17.9.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.1,61,392/- raised vide notice No.89 dated First Appeal No. 1233 of 2008 2 10.1.2008 and to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant was a subscriber of electric connection bearing account No.SP18/1483 and was aggrieved by a notice No.89 dated 10.1.2008, received from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.1,61,392/- on the alleged ground of theft of electricity, which according to him was wrong and illegal. It was pleaded that on 7.1.2008, the officials of the opposite parties came to his farm and told him that the electricity would come only for two hours in a day and he should use the generator and, therefore, the electricity consumption was very low. He filed complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned notice.
3. Upon notice, written reply was filed by the opposite parties pleading that the connection of the complainant was checked by Raminderjeet Singh, Sr.XEN alongwith his party in the presence of Jagmail Singh and it was found that he was committing theft of electricity by stopping the electricity meter with the help of magnet while the supply was running to the poultry farm and also there were scratches on the counter of the meter. Hence it was declared to be a theft case. Checking report was prepared at the spot, read over and explained to the complainant. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. After having gone through the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective averments and after hearing learned First Appeal No. 1233 of 2008 3 counsel on their behalf, the complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum, vide aforesaid order.
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:-
"(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 connection of the complainant was checked and it was found that he was committing theft of electricity by stopping the electricity meter with the help of magnet while the supply was running to the poultry farm and there were scratches on the counter of the meter. Hence it First Appeal No. 1233 of 2008 4 was declared to be a theft case. Thereafter, 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 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.First Appeal No. 1233 of 2008 5
(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 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 appellants/opposite parties is accepted, the order of the District Forum, accepting the complaint, is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed 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 sum of Rs.2,500/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants/opposite parties, in equal shares, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
12. The arguments in the case were heard on 14.8.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No. 1233 of 2008 6
13. 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 August 23, 2013 VINAY