State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Baldev Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 4 September, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2009
Date of Institution: 02.03.2009
Date of Decision: 04.09.2013
Baldev Singh son of Gurbachan Singh r/o Village Budha Theh, Tehsil
and District Kapurthala.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The Mall,
Patiala.
2. Sr.Executive Engineer, PSEB Sub Urban Division Kapurthala.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division, Dhilwan, PSEB
Kapurthala.
...Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 28.1.2009 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kapurthala.
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.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 28.1.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (in short "District Forum"), vide which his complaint was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant got installed a domestic electric connection, bearing No.X22JD390440H, at his residence. He had been paying electricity bills regularly as per First Appeal No. 251 of 2009 2 his consumption. Surprisingly, he received a memo No.805 dated 22.7.2008, vide which a demand to the tune of Rs.32,176/- was raised by the opposite parties on account of false charges of pilferage of electricity as no checking was ever conducted by the officials of the PSEB. His request to withdraw this amount was declined. Hence he filed the complaint before the District Forum.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written reply pleading that the connection of the complainant was checked by SDO Er.Darshan Singh alongwith Er.Ravinder Singh, JE and Manjit Mohammad RTM on 15.7.2008 and he was found using electricity by way of inserting direct supply in the main switch of his meter on the load side by way of bye-passing the meter so that the meter would not show any consumption and thus was committing theft of electricity. The checking was recorded in the register at Sr.No.59/98 dated 15.7.2008. Brothers of the complainant, who were present at the time of checking, started manhandling with the employees of the PSEB, therefore, a letter No.SPL 1 dated 15.7.2008 was sent to SHO PS Dhilwan for registration of a case against him. Notice No.805 dated 22.7.2008 was issued to the complainant under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, in which a demand of Rs.32,176/- was raised on account of theft of electricity.
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. First Appeal No. 251 of 2009 3
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 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 15.7.2008 and he was found using electricity by way of inserting direct supply in the main switch of his meter on the load side by way of bye-passing the meter so that meter may not show any consumption and thus was committing theft of electricity. Therefore, the impugned notice was issued. That clearly implies that the opposite parties proceeded under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for making the assessment. First Appeal No. 251 of 2009 4
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 "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."First Appeal No. 251 of 2009 5
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 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 20.8.2013 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 September 04, 2013 VINAY