Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sunny Son Of Sh.Ram Lubhaya, vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 22 August, 2013

                                                         2nd ADDITIONAL BENCH


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


                      First Appeal No.340 of 2012


                                       Date of Institution:     19.03.2012
                                       Date of Decision:        22.08.2013.


Sunny son of Sh.Ram Lubhaya, resident of Sant Nagar, Raikot
Road, Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

                                                                 .....Appellant.
                              Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, city Jagraon,
District Ludhiana, through its Senior Executive Engineer.

                                                              .....Respondent.

                                       First Appeal against the order
                                       dated 18.01.2012 of the District
                                       Consumer Disputes Redressal
                                       Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-

       Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.

Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.

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

Present:- Sh.J.M.Aggarwal, Advocate

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:-

Sh. Sunny, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.01.2012 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "the District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The meter of the appellant was checked on 24.08.2011 by the concerned AEE and during checking, both the ME seals of the meter were found tampered and there was whole in the backside of the meter. Demand of Rs.90,157/- was raised vide notice no.972 dated 25.8.2011 as theft charges and Rs.40,000/- as compounding fees.

3. 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".

4. 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, as the District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter covered u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. There is no need to issue notice to the respondents as neither the complaint nor the appeal is maintainable in view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on merits, but as stated above, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant and, as such, appeal of the appellant is dismissed. Consequently, the complaint is also dismissed being not maintainable.

6. If the appellant/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 with the orders of this Commission after filing the appeal, then the same shall be adjusted towards the demanded amount or may be considered as part of deposit, if the appellant/complainant moves the appropriate authority under the Electricity Act, 2003. In case, the appellant/complainant has deposited any amount with this Commission in the appeal, then the same along with interest accrued thereon if any shall be refunded to the appellant/complainant by the registry by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.

7. The District Forum is directed to procure the presence of the appellant/complainant and then shall return the complaint to him for presenting it before the appropriate authority, if so advised.

8. The period spent while pursuing the complaint before the District Forum as well as in this appeal is excluded for the purpose of limitation as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Trai Foods Ltd. vs. National Insurance Co. and others", (2004)13 SCC 656.

9. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.08.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties, free of cost.

10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

                                  (Gurcharan Singh Saran)
                                 Presiding Judicial Member


                                      (Piare Lal Garg)
                                          Member


August 22, 2013                           (J.S.Gill)
Lb/-                                      Member