State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd vs Jagdev Singh on 14 July, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
First Appeal No.629 of 2016
Date of Institution: 19.08.2016
Date of Decision : 14.07.2017
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Assistant
Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Sub Division, Lambhi, Tehsil Malout,
District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.....Appellant/Opposite party
Versus
Jagdev Singh S/o Nar Singh R/o Village Lambi, Tehsil Malout, District
Sri Muktsar Sahib.
......Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
06.05.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar
Sahib.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Piyush Khanna, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Arun Dogra, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
The appellant/opposite party has filed this appeal against the order dated 06.05.2016 in Consumer Complaint No.157 of 2015, vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and First Appeal No.629 of 2016 2 demand of Rs.40,117/- raised by the appellant/opposite party is not the legal demand. However, it was observed that this opposite party had proceeded against the complainant regarding allegations of theft of electricity, then this order shall not create any hindrance in taking action against the complainant under the law.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite party on the averments that he is the consumer of the opposite party. He received Letter No.768 dated 03.08.2015 in which it was stated that the officials of the opposite party checked the electricity connection of the complainant and during inspection both seals of the meter and body were found tampered and also found extra material in C.T. Circuit. The demand so raised by the opposite party on the basis of checking is null and void because the procedure as incorporated under Section 135 of the Act and Section 37.1.2 was not violated. The old meter removed by the Labour of the contractor was installed outside the house of the complainant and meter box was locked and keys of the same with the employees of the opposite party. Therefore, the question of tampering does not arise. The meter of the complainant was not removed by the authorized officer of the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint was filed to set aside the demand of Rs.40,117/- raised by the opposite party vide letter dated 03.08.2015 and also for compensation and litigation expenses.
3. On receipt of the notice, opposite party filed its written reply and raised preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer and does not fall within the definition of 'Consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') First Appeal No.629 of 2016 3 because theft of the electricity was found during the checking of the removed meter of his connection in the M.E. Lab, Muktsar on 30.07.2015 and further stated that no cause of action had arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint before the District Forum. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant had not availed the remedies under the Electricity Act, 2003. On merits also, the averments stated in the preliminary objections were reiterated and stated that if it is a case of theft then the complainant does not fall within the definition of the 'consumer' as defined in the Act and the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. It was also reiterated that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Complaint is without any merit and it be dismissed.
4. Before the District Forum, the parties led their respective evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit alongwith documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C19. On the other hand, opposite party has tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Gurraj Singh, J.E. Operations alongwith the documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8
6. After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, written version filed by Ops, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed as referred above.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/opposite party has filed the present appeal. First Appeal No.629 of 2016 4
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
9. It was argued by the counsel for the opposite party that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013(2) CLT 226 titled as U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. & Others Vs. Anis Ahmad, it was held that in the case of theft the complainant is not a consumer and the procedure as envisaged in the Electricity Act is to be followed and the Consumer Fora do not have any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in such cases. This contention was not considered by the District Forum and wrongly allowed the complaint with the observation that in case any complaint regarding theft is filed then this order shall not become hindrance but the District Forum failed to appreciate how the complainant is a consumer when there are clear cut assertion in the written reply of tampering the seal duly confirmed by the M.E. Lab, Muktsar. It also ignored the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Counsel for the respondent/complainant was not able to rebut this judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the procedure envisaged under the Electricity Act, 2003 to deal with the cases regarding theft of energy.
10. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Forum is not justified and is liable to be set aside.
11. Sequel to the above, we accept the appeal and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the right of the complainant to approach the appropriate Forum / Civil Court to redress his grievance, if any. First Appeal No.629 of 2016 5
12. A sum of Rs.7,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant/opposite party by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER July,14, 2017 parmod