Despite service, no one appears for the respondent.  Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

          Delay condoned.

This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by Ajmer Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and its functionaries, questioning the legality of order dated 9.5.2007, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”).  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against order dated 27.7.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajsamand, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent against the additional demand created by the petitioners in the electricity bill for the month of October 2005.

In our opinion, in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anis Ahmad – (2013)8 SCC 491, wherein it has been held that a complaint against assessment made under Section 126 or action taken against those committing offences under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable under the Act, the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum was not maintainable. 

In the impugned order, dated 9.5.2007, the State Commission has recorded that at the time of inspection on 21.5.2003 by the Vigilance Department of the petitioners, it was found that the respondent was drawing a load of 69 HP as against commercial sanctioned load of 59 HP and a lie load of 0.5 KWA as against the maximum contract demand of 57-75 KVA, which was more than the sanctioned demand.  Pursuant to the vigilance report submitted by the officials, an additional demand of `72,479/- was assessed against the complainant for the excessive load for which a Notice No.84 dated 11.4.2005 was issued to him.  Since the respondent failed to deposit the amount, the said amount was added in the regular electricity bill of October 2005 towards arrears to be recovered.  It was this additional demand which was challenged in the complaint before the District Forum.  In view of the said authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, complaint under the Act, against such demand could not be entertained.

Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed; the orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.