1. The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been preferred by Narayan Prasad Kesharwani (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner), assailing the Order dated 07.02.2015, passed by the Chattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Pindari, Raipur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 14/2014 whereby the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and uphold the Order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Korba, Bilaspur (for short “the District Forum”).

2. Succinctly put, the material facts as narrated in the Complaint are that on 07.01.2013, allegedly men claiming to be officials of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent Company), entered the house of the Petitioner and got signature of Petitioner’s wife on several documents under duress and a provisional bill of ₹52,140/- was generated on 09.01.2013. That again officials visited the house of the Petitioner and disconnected the electricity connection, however, the electricity connection was restored on 13.01.2013. On 19.01.2013 another bill of ₹1,46,386/- was raised on Petitioner which was delivered at the house of the Petitioner only on 24.01.2013 and a letter dated 19.01.2013 was filed before the Police Station, Rampur seeking to register FIR against the Petitioner.  Subsequently, on 29.06.2013 Petitioner applied for electricity connection at his residential house for First Floor, and fresh connection was granted to the Petitioner vide connection no. 1004756649/3341837-67-017960. That the Petitioner also filed RTI in order to ascertain the status of the letter filed before the Police Station, Rampur, in reply to which the Petitioner was informed that no FIR has been registered against him. Aggrieved, Petitioner filed Complaint before the District Commission being Consumer Complaint No. 14 of 2002 alleging deficiency in service by the Respondent since the requisite electricity connection was disconnected from 07.01.2013 till 13.01.2013 without any reason whatsoever.

3. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum vide Order dated 11.11.2014 dismissed the Complaint by observing that the dispute falls under Section 126 and 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act and in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, III (2013) CPJ (SC) 1, the District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.

4. Upon Appeal being preferred by the Petitioner before the State Commission, vide order dated 07.02.2015 upheld the Order passed by the District Commission by observing as under:-

Upon perusal it has been found that electricity supply has been received by the Appellant illegally and in this condition relying on the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, III (2013) CPJ (SC) 1, it is found that the District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case and therefore, the Order as passed by the District Commission is in accordance with the law.There is no need to interfere with the above order.

5. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner/Complainant has filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission assailing Impugned Order dated 07.02.2015 passed by the State Commission, with following prayers:-

“(a)    call for records and pass appropriate orders;

(b)     set aside the judgment and order dated 07.02.2015 passed in FA/14/785 by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur; and

(c)     grant compensation of ₹ 10,00,000/- to the Petitioner for mental agony and sufferings; and/or

(d)     pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

6. Mr. Narayan Prasad Kesharwani, Petitioner-in-person, submitted that the dispute at hand between the Parties pertains to deficiency in service and unjust acts as done by the Respondent by disconnecting its service from 07.01.2013 till 10.01.2013 without any reason and thereby tarnishing the image of the Petitioner and causing loss to the Petitioner, that the District and State Commission has committed grave error in not appreciating the facts of the case and relying upon another Judgment which does not relate to the facts of the case at hand.
7. Per contra, Ms. Rashmi Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Company submitted that there is no infirmity in the Impugned Orders passed by the Fora below. She has further argued that the dispute at hand does not pertain to deficiency in service. That demand bill of ₹1,46,836/- was raised upon the Petitioner after due inspection under the mandate of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein, the Petitioner was found guilty of offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, in as much as, the Petitioner was found using 5Kw electricity in excess of the sanctioned load and therefore the dispute does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further reliance has been placed on Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. versus Anis Ahmad, 2013 (8) SCC 491. That the temporary disconnection was done in accordance with Clause 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code. Learned Counsel has thus stated that there is no issue with regard to deficiency in service and/ or unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and therefore, the consumer fora are not the appropriate forum to raise the grievance related to the provisions under the Electricity Act, 2003, and as such, the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 
8.  
8. We have heard the Petitioner-in-person and learned Counsel for the Respondent, perused the Impugned Orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum, other material  available on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the pleas raised by the Parties.
9. From the perusal of the record, it cannot be denied that the electricity connection of the Petitioner was disconnected since the Petitioner was found illegally consuming electricity and in view of the same, necessary proceedings were initiated under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. versus Anis Ahmad, 2013 (8) SCC 491 has held as under:

“47. In view of the observation made above, we hold that:

(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.

(iii) 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”.

10. In the instant case, the electricity connection was not disconnected due to deficient service but in view of proceedings initiated under section 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. versus Anis Ahmad” (supra) the present Complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.  We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Impugned Order dated 07.02.2015 passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Even otherwise, in the present case there is concurrent finding of the fact that the electricity connection was disconnected due to proceedings under section 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003. The Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022]  by observing as under:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

12. Respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “U.P. Power Coproration Ltd. versus Anis Ahmad (supra) and ‘Sunil Kumar Maity (supra), we do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 07.02.2015 passed by the State Commission is upheld. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.