State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Khushal Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board, ... on 18 September, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1236 OF 2009
Date of Institution: 27.08.2009
Date of Decision: 18.09.2013
Khushal Singh son of Sh.Ganga Singh, resident of Village Panje Ke
Uttar, Sub The.Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Chairman.
2. Senior Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Jalalabad (W),
Punjab State Electricity Board, District Ferozepur.
...Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 9.6.2009 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
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.G.S.Sidhu, Advocate
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 9.6.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "District Forum"), vide which his complaint was dismissed.
2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was the holder of an electric connection bearing account No.SP33/0080 for Atta Chakki which was being used by him for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. He received a First Appeal No. 1236 of 2009 2 memo No.7462 dated 24.12.2008 from the opposite parties whereby demand of Rs.60,764/- was raised. His connection was disconnected without following proper procedure. When approached, the opposite parties told him that the said penalty was on account of alleged checking dated 10.12.2008 conducted by Enforcement Ferozepur and he was found committing theft of electricity. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, prayer was made to quash the impugned demand.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written reply pleading therein that the connection, in question, was checked by Er.Jasbir Singh, Senior XEN (Enforcement), PSEB Ferozepur alongwith others on 10.12.2008 and the complainant was found committing theft of electricity by bye-passing one phase of the meter in question. Detailed sketch was prepared by the checking officials at page No.4 of Register No.902. Accordingly, memo No.7462, raising a demand of Rs.60,764/-, was sent to the complainant.
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 in unauthorized use of electricity, he is required to provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by First Appeal No. 1236 of 2009 3 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 in question was checked on 10.12.2008 and the complainant was found committing theft of electricity by bye-passing one phase of the meter in question. Accordingly, memo No.7462 raising a demand of Rs.60,764/- was sent to the complainant. That clearly shows 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 First Appeal No. 1236 of 2009 4 "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 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 First Appeal No. 1236 of 2009 5 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 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 September 18, 2013 VINAY