NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/293/2011

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. JURISPERITUS

05 May 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 293 OF 2011
 
(Against the Order dated 05/10/2010 in Appeal No. 1333/2010 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR.
Sub Division, U.H.B.V.N. Narwana
Jind
Haryana
2. UHBVNL
Through Executive Engineer
Narwana
Haryana
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. PREM CHAND
Village-Dhamtan, Tehsil-Narwana
Jind
Haryana
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Shalin Authwan, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate

Dated : 05 May 2014
ORDER

This revision petition under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “The Act”), filed by Opposite Party, viz. Uttar Haryana

-2-

Bijli Vitran Nigam (for short “UHBVN”) is directed against order dated 05.10.2010, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short ‘‘the State Commission’’) in Appeal No.1333 of 2010.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by UHBVNL against order dated 24.05.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short “the District Forum”) in complaint no.107/2010.  The District Forum allowed the complaint; set aside the imposition of a sum of `67,829/- as penalty and `40,000/- compounding amount and directed the opposite party to refund the deposited amount of `67,829/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment with a sum of `1,000/- as costs.

               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.

-3-

               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 30.11.2009 when it was found that the respondent was extracting electricity supply bypassing 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 him.                                                                                                

 

 
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER
......................
VINAY KUMAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.