State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P.C.L. vs Swami Atam Prakash on 30 March, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,UTTARAKHAND 176 Ajabpur Kalan,Mothrowala Road, Dehradun-248121 Final Order First Appeal No. RP/10/12 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District ) 1. U.P.C.L. through Ex. EN. Electricty Distibution Division,Nagriya,Haridwar. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Swami Atam Prakash Sisya Swamin Balkrishan r/o Patidham, Bhimgoda, Haridwar. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. Verma PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. D. K. Tyagi, H.J.S. MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Veena Sharma MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER ORDER
Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):
This revision application is directed against the order dated 19.07.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 171 of 2010; Swami Aatm Prakash vs. Executive Engineer, UPCL.
2. Learned counsel for revisionists-Electricity Department has submitted that at the time of filing the consumer complaint law was prevailing as per the case of Jharkhand State Electricity Board and another vs. Anwar Ali; II (2008) CPJ 284 (NC), wherein it was held that for seeking a remedy either under Section 127 of the Electricity Act or under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the consumer is required to deposit the amount equal to half of the assessed amount with the licensee.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012; U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Anis Ahmad; III (2013) CPJ I (SC), has held that the cases pertaining to the unauthorized use of electricity, wherein assessment was made under Section 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the complaint does not lie before any Consumer Forum.
4. We have heard Sh. S.M. Jain, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sh. V.K. Vashistha, learned counsel for respondent. By perusal of the record, it is evident that this case is of unauthorized use of electricity and assessment was made under Section 126 of the Electricitiy Act, 2003. Therefore, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anis Ahmad (supra), this revision petition is liable to be allowed and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 19.07.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 171 of 2010 is set aside. The complainant would be at liberty to file an appeal against the assessment order passed by the Electricity Department before the appropriate Forum. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. Verma] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. D. K. Tyagi, H.J.S.] MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Veena Sharma] MEMBER