Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Punjab State Electricity Board vs Seema Rani on 23 November, 2013

                                         FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
     SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                         First Appeal No. 442 of 2010

                                     Date of Institution:    18.03.2010
                                     Date of Decision :      23.11.2013.

   1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The Mall,
      Patiala.

   2. Sub Divisional Officer (Asst. Executive Engineer), Punjab State
      Electricity Board, Budhlada, District Mansa.

   3. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Budhlada,
      District Mansa.

                                                              .....Appellants

                         Versus

      Seema Rani alias Simi, D/o Sh. Bhagail Chand, C/o Ganpati
      Trading Industries, Bhikhi Road, Budhlada, District Mansa.


                                                            .....Respondent.

                               First Appeal against the order dated
                               18.12.2009 of the District Consumer
                               Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Before:-

            Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

...................................

Present:- Sh. I.S.Sidhu, Advocate with Sh. Sudhir Kumar, SDO (in person) for the appellants.

None for the respondent.

---------------------------------------- INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

Punjab State Electricity Board & anothers, appellants (In short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short "the District Forum").

2. As per the pleadings/allegations, the subject matter of this case is covered U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. Sh. Sudhir Kumar, SDO, the appellant has made the statement that the appeal may be disposed of in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad" 2013 (3) CLT-226 (SC).

4. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent, but even then the appeal has to be disposed of in terms of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad", (supra) dealt with the complaints filed against the assessment made U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or any action taken U/s 135 to 140 of the said Act and after detailed discussion, held as follows:-

"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".

6. Since the subject matter of this case is covered U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and, 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, as the District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter covered u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 18.12.2009 passed by the District Forum is set aside.

8. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 25000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant No. 2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.

9. If the respondent/complainant has deposited any amount at the time of filing the complaint with the PSEB (now PSPCL) by the orders of the District Forum or of this Commission, then the same shall be adjusted towards the demanded amount or may be considered as part of deposit, if the respondent/complainant moves the appropriate authority against the demand in question. In case, the amount is lying deposited with the District Forum, then at the time of returning the complaint, the District Forum shall pass appropriate order qua that amount.

10. 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 then shall return the complaint for presenting it before the appropriate authority, if so advised.

11. The period spent while pursuing the complaint as well as this appeal shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

12. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.

(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member November 23, 2013.

kalyan First Appeal No. 442 of 2010 4