PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1137 of 2011 – S.D.O. Model Town Sub Division, UHBVNL, Sonepat Vs. Jagbir Singh by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent had domestic electricity connection from OP/petitioner. It is alleged that on 30.11.2010 in the absence of complainant and his family members, his premises were checked and wrong and illegal report was prepared and on that basis raised demand of Rs.1,22,727/- was raised on account of alleged theft. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that on checking meter body seals of complainant’s connection, it was found tampered and on the basis of checking report, demand was raised. It was further submitted that meter was sent to the laboratory for testing in which it was observed that insulated loops are provided on incoming phase to outgoing phase to bye-pass the energy metering and there was no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and quashed demand. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as it was the case of theft of electricity and was not maintainable before Consumer Forum, learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that it was only suspected case of theft, but not of theft; hence, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and revision petition be dismissed. 5. As per complainant himself, on the basis of checking report and on account of theft, penalty and compounding fee was levied and demand was raised. OP has also pleaded same thing. In such circumstances, apparently, it was the case of theft and has held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012 – U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad’s case complaint pertaining to theft of electricity is not maintainable before Consumer Fora and in such circumstances, order passed by learned District forum and learned State Commission are liable to be set aside. It is not to be seen whether theft has been established or not but on the ground of alleged theft of electricity, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 6. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in Appeal No. 1137 of 2011 – S.D.O. Model Town Sub Division, UHBVNL, Sonepat Vs. Jagbir Singh and order District Forum dated 2.6.2011 passed in Complaint No. 201/2010 – Jagbir Singh Vs. SDO, Model Town Sub Div., UHBVN Ltd. Sonepat is set aside and complaints stand dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. Complainant is given liberty to approach to appropriate authorities under the Indian Electricity Act for redressal of his grievance. |
