Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 9.6.2011 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. 628 of 1997. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 10.10.1997 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Karnal in complaint case No. 257 of 1996 by which order, the complaint of the complainant was partly allowed with the following directions:- “Therefore, we would hold that 53 bulbs at the premises of the complainant were of 40 watts and two bulbs were of 100 watts besides the other implements were there. We direct that, as far as this complaint is concerned O/P shall overhaul the account of the complainant on the presumption that the connected load of the complainant using 53 bulbs of 40 watts and two bulbs of 100 watts besides other implements as mentioned in the report. O/P-3 shall serve a fresh notice upon the complainant and in case any amount is found refundable to the complainant, the same shall be done by O/P- 3 within 60 days of this order.” 2. By the same order, the District Forum had also decided the complaint case No. 756 of 1996 filed by the present petitioner-complainant by giving the following directions:- “For these reasons, we direct O/P not to charge the amount of the impugned bill from the complainant and instead, we direct O/P to serve a fresh bill upon the complainant by assuming that the theft by the complainant was for half period per day than the one levied through the impugned bill and not exceeding six months. O/P shall not charge any interest or surcharge on the said amount and shall give credit to the complainant for the amount deposited by him. The order shall be carried out within 60 days of the receipt of this order.” 3. It would appear that Haryana State Electricity Board instead of filing two separate appeals against the said order passed in the said complaints filed only one appeal bearing No. 628 of 1997. The said appeal was earlier decided by the State Commission vide order dated 20.07.2000, which was subject matter of challenge before this Commission in revision petition No. 324 of 2001 decided on 11.09.2006 by observing as under :- “Since two complaints were decided by the order dated 10.10.1997, two appeals would lie. Having heard parties Ld. Counsel and also having considered the order of State Commission, we are of the view that State Commission instead of dismissing the appeal straightaway on ground of one appeal only having been filed should have enquired from the petitioner as to against which order in two complaint cases that appeal had been filed. Since this course of action was not adopted by the State Commission and appeal dismissed, the order under challenge cannot be legally sustained. On enquiry, Shri Singh states that appeal be treated as having been filed against the order in complaint case No. 257 of 1996. Accordingly, revision is allowed and aforesaid order dated 20.07.2000 set aside and case remanded to the State Commission for appeal against order in complaint case No. 257 of 1996 being decided on merit. 4. Despite the remand of the matter and the observations made by this Commission, it appears that the Board did not file any appeal against the order dated 10.10.1997 passed in complaint case No. 756 of 1996. However, it took into account both the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum while deciding first appeal No. 628 of 1997, which was specifically filed against the order passed in complaint No.257 of 1996. This has led to the passing of somewhat confusing order by the State Commission in appeal making observations in regard to the lack of jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum to entertain the complaint as also on factual aspects which was the subject matter of second complaint No. 756 of 1996. 5. We have heard Mr. Ankur Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. In our view, the order passed by the State Commission so far it has allowed the appeal of the Board qua the order passed by the District Consumer Forum in complaint case No. 257 of 1996 is concerned, the same can be said to be justified and suffers from no illegality, material irregularity because there is no denial of the factual position that the complainant had been extracting a load of 6.346 KW as against sanctioned load of 0.60 KW for which the penalty of more than Rs.6,000/- was imposed by the concerned authority going by the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. However, learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant states that the State Commission was not justified in taking into account the facts of other case, which related to the unauthorized extraction of electricity/theft by dubious means, by connecting the line directly by-passing the meter. We find force in this submission because the State Commission could not have adverted to the facts of other complaint while deciding the appeal filed against order of District Consumer Forum passed in different complaint based different cause of action. 6. In view of the above, we dismiss the present petition, however, with observation that the findings in regard to the jurisdiction of the consumer fora will not be relevant to the facts and circumstances of complaint No. 257 of 1996 because the alleged unauthorized extraction of energy was prior to the amendment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the amending Act No. 62 of 2002 effective from 15.03.2003. The order of the District Consumer Forum passed in complaint case No. 756 of 1996 would be deemed to have become final and will not be affected by the order and finding and observation made by the State Commission in other case. Any observation or findings made by the State Commission in the impugned order will have no bearing on the order passed by the District Consumer Forum in complaint case No. 756 of 1996. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. | 
