State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satwant Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. on 1 October, 2011
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 992 of 2011
Date of institution: 28.6.2011
Date of Decision : 1.10.2013
Satwant Singh S/o S. Ram Singh, R/o 2421/15, Gali Shahdin, Bazar
Gujran, Chowk Chabutra, Amritsar
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman/ Principal
Officer, Service through A.E.E., Chatiwind Sub Division, Amritsar.
.....Respondent/Opposite party
Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate
For the respondent : Ex.-parte
First Appeal against the order dated 20.5.2011
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellant/complainant(hereinafter called "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 20.5.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal FIRST APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2011 2 Forum, Amritsar(hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 752 dated 9.7.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') on the allegations that he has electric connection bearing A/c No. CW02/311 at his residence. On 3.7.2010, his connection was checked by the checking party of the opposite party and then he received memo No. 629 dated 24.6.2010 raising demand of Rs. 33,640/- on account of theft of energy by way of direct supply but no inspection was carried in his presence, therefore, this report and demand is illegal. Hence, the complaint.
3. Whereas the opposite party has submitted that the premises has submitted that the premises of the complainant were checked by Sh. H.K. Soni, AEE SDO on 15.6.2010 and during checking he was found using unauthorised use of electricity by committing theft of energy from main supply line. Therefore, it being a case of theft of electricity, there is no merit in the complaint and the same be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement, evidence and documents brought on the record, it was observed by the learned District Forum that assessment was made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and on account of theft FIRST APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2011 3 of energy by the complainant, therefore, the learned District Forum did not see any merit in the complaint and the same was dismissed.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
7. 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".
In view of the above judgment, the District Forum has no jurisdiction.
8. Since the case in hand falls under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, then certainly, in view of the above judgment, the District Forum does not have any jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint and appeal of the complainant is dismissed only on the point of jurisdiction and not on merits as the District Forum was not having the jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The complaint of the appellant/complainant is also dismissed being not maintainable. FIRST APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2011 4
9. The record of the District Forum, complete in all respects, be sent back to the District Forum immediately. The District Forum is directed to procure the presence of the appellant/complainant and return the complaint to the complainant.
10. However, the appellant/complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority as per The Electricity Act, 2003.
11. 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. v. National Insurance Co. and others", (2004) 13 SCC 656.
12. If the appellant/complainant had deposited any amount to comply with the interim order of the District Forum or the State Commission with the PSEB (now PSPCL) then the same shall be adjusted towards the demand in dispute or the said amount may be considered as part of deposit, which is required to be deposited as per Section 127 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for preferring the appeal against the demand made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Appellate Authority(prescribed). If the amount is lying deposited with the District Forum then the District Forum shall pass appropriate order qua the amount at the time of returning the complaint to the complainant.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.9.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties, free of cost.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2011 5
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
October 1, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member