Advantage Consumer

	advantageconsumer.com Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela

	In a case of theft of electricity, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint. NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2890 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 20/05/2011 in Appeal No. 378/2006 of the State Commission, Punjab) PSPCL & ANR. Head Office at : The Mall Patiala Punjab ...........Petitioner(s) Versus GURU RAM DASS ESTATE Village: Dholwaha, Hoshiarpur Punjab ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,MEMBER Dated : 01 Sep 2016 ORDER PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 20.5.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 378 of 2006, DIR Guru Ram Dass Estate vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr., by which, appeal was partly allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent was having electric connection with opposite party/petitioner at his agriculture farm. Complainant received demand notice of Rs.3,07,691/- on the basis of alleged checking of electric connection by Flying Squad on 22.4.2005 whereas no such checking was made in the presence of complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that XEN, Flying Squad checked connection of complainant and found that meter of the complainant was running slow by 69% due to reversion/inversion of the C.T. of Blue phase and on that basis demand was raised. It was further submitted that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 3. Learned District Forum, after hearing parties, dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and opposite party was directed to restrict its bill up to two years back from the date of checking, against which this Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that on account of theft of electricity, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal partly; hence Revision Petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence revision petition be dismissed. 6. It is not disputed that opposite party raised bill on the basis of checking done by Flying Squad and as per Flying Squad complainant’s meter was running slow. Thus, it becomes clear that prima facie this is a case of theft of electricity and in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC)-U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed case, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint and complainant should approach to appropriate authority under Indian Electricity Act and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal partly and revision petition is to be allowed. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 20.5.2011 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 378 of 2006 – DIR Guru Ram Dass Estate vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr., is set aside and order of District Forum dismissing complaint is upheld and complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate authority under the Indian Electricity Act for redressal of his grievance. Parties to bear their own costs. Top

In a case of theft of electricity, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2890 OF 2011
(Against the Order dated 20/05/2011 in Appeal No. 378/2006 of the
State Commission, Punjab)

PSPCL & ANR.
Head Office at : The Mall
Patiala
Punjab ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
GURU RAM DASS ESTATE
Village: Dholwaha,
Hoshiarpur
Punjab ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,PRESIDING MEMBER
    HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,MEMBER

Dated : 01 Sep 2016

ORDER

PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

                This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 20.5.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 378 of 2006, DIR Guru Ram Dass Estate vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr., by which, appeal was partly allowed.

2.     Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent was having electric connection with opposite party/petitioner at his agriculture farm. Complainant received demand notice of Rs.3,07,691/- on the basis of alleged checking of electric connection by Flying Squad on 22.4.2005 whereas no such checking was made in the presence of complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that XEN, Flying Squad checked connection of complainant and found that meter of the complainant was running slow by 69% due to reversion/inversion of the C.T. of Blue phase and on that basis demand was raised. It was further submitted that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.     Learned District Forum, after hearing parties, dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and opposite party was directed to restrict its bill up to two years back from the date of checking, against which this Revision Petition has been filed.

4.     Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

5.     Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that on account of theft of electricity, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal partly; hence Revision Petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence revision petition be dismissed.

6.     It is not disputed that opposite party raised bill on the basis of checking done by Flying Squad and as per Flying Squad complainant’s meter was running slow. Thus, it becomes clear that prima facie this is a case of theft of electricity and in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC)-U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed case, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint and complainant should approach to appropriate authority under Indian Electricity Act and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal partly and revision petition is to be allowed.

7.     Consequently, revision petition filed by petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 20.5.2011 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 378 of 2006 – DIR Guru Ram Dass Estate vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr., is set aside and order of District Forum dismissing complaint is upheld and complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate authority under the Indian Electricity Act for redressal of his grievance. Parties to bear their own costs.