State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Darshan Kaur Alias Karamjit Kaur vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 6 March, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO.901 OF 2010
Date of Institution: 25.05.2010
Date of Decision: 06.03.2014
Darshan Kaur alias Karamjit Kaur, aged about 40 years, w/o
Sh.Sukhwant Singh, resident of Street No.5, Udham Singh Nagar,
Bathinda, Tehsil and Distt. Bathinda.
.....Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, now Punjab State Electricity
Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala, Distt. Patiala, through
its Secretary.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board,
now Punjab State Electricity Corporation Limited, Sub Urban
Sub Division, Bathinda.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 1.4.2010 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellant : None
For the respondents : Sh.Ajit Atri, Advocate
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 1.4.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "District Forum"), vide which her complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed. First Appeal No.901 of 2010 2
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had purchased a house from one Gurmukh Singh, where an electric connection, bearing account No.B14PT170251Y, was installed for domestic purpose in the name of Jasvir Singh. She had been making the payment of the bills regularly. She received a notice dated 2.9.2009 from opposite party No.2 in which a demand of Rs.51,401/- was raised on the false allegation of theft of electricity. It was pleaded that alleged checking was not done in her presence or any of her representative and that she never committed any theft of electricity. Her connection was disconnected by the opposite parties whereupon she deposited Rs.5,517/- on 20.4.2009 and further paid Rs.1,490/- on 17.9.2009 for getting the connection restored. She filed a complaint before the District Forum for setting aside the impugned demand and to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by her.
3. The opposite parties filed written reply pleading therein that the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 3.4.2009 due to non-payment of electricity bills. Her connection was earlier checked by Sr.XEN Enforcement, Bathinda on 26.8.2009 and she was caught red handed committing theft of electricity by way of directly connecting load of her house with the main supply line of PSEB. Accordingly, the impugned demand was raised vide memo No.872 dated 20.9.2009 under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003.
4. The District Forum, after going through the evidence produced by the parties, dismissed the complaint.
First Appeal No.901 of 2010 3
5. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant has come up in appeal.
6. As per the pleadings/allegations levelled by the opposite parties, the subject matter of this case is covered U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 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, 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".
8. 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 appeal as well as the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is not maintainable. The District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter covered u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is dismissed. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on merits, but as stated above, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with such complaints, as such, order under appeal dated 1.4.2010, First Appeal No.901 of 2010 4 dismissing the complaint, is set aside without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to seek her appropriate remedy before the proper authority under the Electricity Act, 2003. The time spent by her 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.
10. The arguments in the case were heard on 25.2.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The amount deposited by the complainant with the respondents/opposite parties as per the directions of the District Forum or as per the direction given by this Commission, if any, be considered as advance towards the demand raised by the respondents/opposite 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 (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER March 06, 2014 VINAY