Delhi

StateCommission

A/331/2015

MUKESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                   Date of Decision: 07.08.2015

First Appeal No. 331/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 22.05.2015 passed in complaint case No. 502/2005 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

Mukesh Kumar

S/o Sh. Madan Lal Aggarwal

R/o A-115, Sector-3, Phase-III

J.J.Colony, Dwarka

New Delhi                                                    Appellant

 

Versus

 

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

(Through its Chief Executive, Legal Cell)

Regd. Office:- BSES Bhawan

Nehru Place

New Delhi                                                    Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                    -                       Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ORDER

      Heard the Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Amjad Hussain, Advocate on admission.

      Appellant has impugned the orders dt. 22.05.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum-X. Vide impugned orders, the complaint of the appellant/complainant was dismissed.

      In brief, the complainant was allegedly found indulging in direct theft of electricity at his premises Flat No. A-115, Sector-3, Phase-III, J.J.Colony, Dwarka, New Delhi on 20.06.2005 by the inspection team of the respondent herein. Electricity theft bill for an amount of Rs. 86,908/- was served. Respondent on 08.03.2006 served the notice u/s 56 of the Electricity Act 2003 upon the appellant/complainant calling him upon to show cause as to why his electricity connection be not disconnected.

      In its written version the respondent herein submitted before the District Forum that this being the case of theft of electricity, the Consumer Courts were not empowered to entertain the complaint. Respondent/OP relied upon the following cases:

 

1. Hon’ble State Commission Delhi in a case D.V.B. V/s D.N.Shukla III (2003) CPJ 66.
2. Hon’ble State Commission Delhi in a case D.V.B. V/s Naresh Kumar II (2003) CPJ 405 and in D.V.B. V/s B.C.Jhulka II (2003) CPJ 91.
3. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case M.P.Electricity Board, Jabalpur & Ors. V/s Harsh Wood Products & Anr. AIR 1996 SC 2258.
4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Rotor Spin Pvt. Ltd. V/s UPSEB (AIR 1991 ALL. LJ).
5. Hon’ble High Court in the case DVB V/s Devender Singh W.P. (C) 1240/2005.
6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering V/s P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583
7. Hon’ble National Commission in M/s Harsolia Motors V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2005(1) CPR 1 (NC).
8. Hon’ble State Commission of Maharashtra in a case named Dream Works Entertainment and Software Ltd. V/s BSES Limited I (2005) CPJ 16.
9. Hon’ble State Commission of West Bengal in a case named W.B.S.E.B. V/s Suresh Debnath I (2005) CPJ 112.
10. Hon’ble State Commission of West Bengal in a case named W.B.S.E.B. V/s Malti Saha III (2005) CPJ 519.
11. Hon’ble State Commission of Maharashtra in a case named Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd. V/s Birla Technologist Ltd. II (2004) CPJ 710.

 

      Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant herein relying upon the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs Anis Ahmed, 111(2013) CPJ 1(SC). It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a person found indulging in theft of electricity is not a ‘consumer’ within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

      Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act 2003 deal with the cases of ‘theft’. There are special courts constituted under the Electricity Act 2003 to deal with the complaints of theft of electricity. Consumer Courts can come to the rescue of an electricity consumer only in case the complaint relates to ‘deficiency in service’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ or ‘restricted trade practice’ adopted by the service provider. Present case being a clear case of theft of electricity, Consumer Fora do not have any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Appeal is hence dismissed in limini.

      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

 

6.