NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1972/2012

MOORDHWAJ YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI - Opp.Party(s)

MS. ANJU JAIN & MR. HITESH SACHAR

28 May 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1972 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 05/12/2011 in Appeal No. 1706/2004 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. MOORDHWAJ YADAV
S/o Shri Chaturbhuj Yadav, R/o Village Behrampur,Tehsil &
Gurgaon
Haryana
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI
Through Sub Divisionl Officer Operation,Sub Diviion Badshahpur
Gurgaon
Haryana
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Ms. Anju Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent :

Dated : 28 May 2014
ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was implicated in a false theft case under Section 379 of I.P.C. and FIR was lodged. Complainant approached Honle High Court and as per directions of Honle High Court complainant deposited 50% of the penalty. Later on opposite party/respondent added entire amount in another connection of the complainant and opposite party was adamant to recover that amount. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party did not file written statement. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant, allowed complaint and penalty was quashed and opposite party was directed to refund deposited amount with 9% interest. Appeal filed by the opposite party was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order passed by District Forum was in accordance with the law but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. Perusal of record reveals that case under Section 379 I.P.C. was registered against the complainant and as per directions of Honle High Court, 50% of the amount was deposited by the complaint and rest 50% of the amount was added by opposite party in another electricity connection of the complainant. Thus it becomes clear that payment pertains to theft of electricity and as per directions of Honle Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, complaints pertaining to theft of electricity are not maintainable before Consumer Forum and complainant should approach to the appropriate authority under Indian Electricity Act. In such circumstances, as complaint itself was not maintainable before Consumer Forum, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with liberty to the petitioner to approach to the appropriate authority under Indian Electricity Act for Redressal of his grievance with no order as to costs.

 
......................J
K.S. CHAUDHARI
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.