This revision petition under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “The Act”), filed by Opposite Party, viz. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short “UHBVNL”) is directed against order
-2- dated 17.03.2011, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short ‘‘the State Commission’’) in Appeal No.929 of 2010. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by UHBVNL against order dated 28.04.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short “the District Forum”) in complaint no.147/2010. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to restore the electricity supply to the connection of the complainant, if the same had not already been restored. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Recently, in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited And Others vs. Anis Ahmad, (2013 8 SCC 491) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where there is an allegation of theft of electricity for commercial purposes, against an order of assessment under Section 126 or action under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, complaint under the Act would not be maintainable. In the present case, complaint was filed by the respondent against assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the basis of the inspection carried out by the staff of the Petitioner Nigam on -3- 02.03.2010 when it was discovered that all the four seals of the meter were found tempered; three number extra resistances were installed on CT/PCB for recording less energy by the meter. In our opinion, in light of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anis Ahmed (supra), the Complaint under the Act was 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, however, be open to the complainant to seek appropriate remedy as available to her. | 
