State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs Harbans Singh on 21 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2013
Date of Institution: 30.1.2013
Date of Decision: 21.08.2013
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office The
Mall, Patiala, through its M.D.
2. Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,
City Distribution Sub Division, Sangrur, Tehsil and District
Sangrur.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Harbans Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh r/o Block D, Guru Nanak Colony
Sangrur, Tehsil and District Sangrur.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 10.12.2012 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:
For the appellants : Sh.Randeep Sigh Bains, Advocate For respondent : Ex-parte BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties, against the order dated 10.12.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.68,737/- raised in the notices dated 19.7.2011 and 1.8.2011. First Appeal No. 97 of 2013 2
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the holder of electric connection bearing account No.S43GR74/1990X installed for residential purpose and his meter was installed inside his house. It was pleaded that the officials of the opposite parties came at his residence and informed him that his meter was being shifted outside of the house and replaced the same with a new meter. The old removed meter was taken away by them. He was not informed that the seals of the removed meter were tampered and same was not checked in the ME Lab in his presence nor he was informed about any said checking. He received a notice No.1131 dated 19.7.2011 in which a demand to the tune of Rs.44,731/- as fine for theft and Rs.24,000/- as compounding charges, was raised. He deposited the said amount under protest to avoid disconnection of his connection and complaint before the District Forum for quashing the said demand.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed written reply pleading that the complainant has concocted a false story. It was alleged that the meter in question was checked on 16.2.2011 in the presence of Sh.Lakhvinder Singh, brother of the complainant and the ME seals were found to be doubtful. The meter was removed and sent to ME Lab vide challan No.101 dated 24.3.2011. A notice dated 24.3.2011 was sent to the complainant for attending the ME Lab for the checking of the removed meter, which was refused. Subsequent notices No.601 dated 10.6.2011, No.917 dated 11.7.2011 were sent to the complainant to appear in the ME Lab so that the checking could be First Appeal No. 97 of 2013 3 conducted in his presence. But every time he refused to accept the notice. So the meter was ultimately checked in the ME Lab by Sr.XEN Enforcement, Patiala, AE/ME Sangrur, AAE ME Sangrur and JE Operation and it was found that ME seals were tampered and reconnected. Even the CT coil of the meter was found bye-passed. A case of theft of electricity was declared and notice No.1181 dated 19.7.2011 was issued raising a demand of Rs.68,737/-. 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 counsel on their behalf, the complaint was 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
First Appeal No. 97 of 2013 4
(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 meter, in question, was checked on 16.2.2011 and the ME seals were found to be doubtful. The meter was removed and sent to ME Lab vide challan No.101 dated 24.3.2011. So the meter was checked in the ME Lab and it was found that ME seals were tampered and reconnected. Even the CT coil of the meter was found bye-passed. A case of theft of electricity was declared and thereafter, notice No.1181 dated 19.7.2011 was issued raising a demand of Rs.68,737/-. 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 First Appeal No. 97 of 2013 5 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.
(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 First Appeal No. 97 of 2013 6 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.25,000/-, deposited at the time of filing of the appeal on 30.1.2013 and Rs.11,000/- deposited on 19.3.2013 as per the order of this Commission, 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 7.8.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
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 August 21, 2013 VINAY