State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surinder Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 23 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2008
Date of Institution: 16.09.2008
Date of Decision: 23.08.2013
Surinder Singh son of Harnam Singh, Resident of Village Bibbar, Sub
Urban Nabha, District Patiala.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Mall Road Patiala, through its
Secretary.
2. S.D.O. Sub Urban P.S.E.B. Nabha, District Patiala.
...Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 11.8.2008 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
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 : None
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 11.8.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "District Forum"), vide which his complaint was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant was the holder of domestic electric connection bearing account No.BG- 37/0120 in his name. He got the load of his electricity connection extended on 26.2.2008 to 3 KW. He received a letter No.284 on First Appeal No. 1022 of 2008 2 15.2.2008 from opposite party No.2 in respect of electricity consumption bearing account No.BG-27/130L raising a demand of Rs.47,181/- in which the father's name of the complainant was mentioned as Hazara Singh. In fact no inspection of his electricity connection was done and the complainant challenged the demand before the District Forum.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties contested the complaint and pleaded that said notice was issued to the complainant and he was directed to file the objections within a period of seven days. The complainant failed to do so. Thereafter, final notice was served as per the provisions of section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The connection of the complainant was checked by Sr.XEN Enforcement, PSEB Patiala on 12.2.2008 in the presence of the complainant vide checking report No.3310/41 and it was found that he was using electric energy after taking direct supply from the pole. The wires which were being used for theft of electricity energy was taken in custody and a case of theft of energy by illegal means was made and demand was raised accordingly.
4. After having gone through the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective averments and hearing learned counsel on their behalf the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.
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 First Appeal No. 1022 of 2008 3 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 on 12.2.2008, vide checking report No.3310/41 and it was found that he was using electric energy by taking direct supply from the pole. The wires, which were being used for theft of electricity energy, were taken in custody and a case of theft of energy by illegal means was made. 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 First Appeal No. 1022 of 2008 4 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.
(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 First Appeal No. 1022 of 2008 5 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 appellant/complainant is dismissed, the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint on merits, is set aside 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 arguments in this case were heard on 13.8.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the 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 August 23, 2013 VINAY