This revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “The Act”), filed by Dakshin Haryana Vitran Nigam Ltd., is directed against order dated 01.08.2007, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short ‘‘the State Commission’’) in Appeal No.191 of 2007. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against order dated 19.10.2006 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short “the District Forum”) in Compliant No.250 of 2005. The District Forum had allowed the Complaint; set aside the checking report Ex.R-3 dated 26.04.2005 and the impugned demand notice dated 27.04.2005 Ex. C-2 being illegal and not binding upon the Complainant; directed the Opposite Parties to refund the impugned amount to the tune of Rs.32,590/- to the Complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 28.04.2005 till payment. -3- In our opinion, in light of the Authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited And Others vs. Anis Ahmad, (2013 8 SCC 491) wherein it has been held that where on allegation of theft of electricity, an order of assessment under Section 126 or action under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is initiated, a Complaint under the Act would not be maintainable, the Revision Petition merits acceptance. In the present case, it has been observed by the State Commission that on 26.04.2005, the Vigilance Team of the Opposite Parties consisted of J.E. Manmohan Singh and J.E. Ganga Ram (Enforcement) checked the meter installed at the premises of the Complainant. At the time Ruldoo Ram, father of the complainant was found using the electricity directly by passing the meter. The electric connection of the adjoining premises Bajrang Bali Dharam Kanta was also connected with the meter of the Complainant. On checking the load of the Complainant was found to be 2.652 KW against the connected load of Bajrang Bali Dharam Kanta to be of .280 KW. As the Complainant was found committing theft of energy, the checking report dated 26.04.2005 -4- was prepared in the presence of the father of the Complainant and one Sat Pal, which was signed by them. On the basis of the instructions contained in the Sale Circular No.D-36/2004, penalty amount of Rs.32,590/- was determined for which demand notice dated 27.04.2005 was served upon the Complainant. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is on all fours to the facts of the instant case and therefore, the Complaint under the Act was itself not maintainable. Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed; orders of the fora below are set aside and the Complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. It will be open to the Respondent to avail of any other legal remedy as may be available to him, if so advised. | 
