1.      This revision petition has been filed by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. as petitioners/complainants against the impugned order dated 10.2.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.740 of 2010 filed by the petitioners/complainants against the order dated 31.03.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short ‘the District Forum’) passed in complaint No.155 of 2009.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant No.2 was a dealer of complainant No.1, who was running a petrol pump where an electric connection, having connected load of 24.70 KW under NRS category, was released by the opposite parties/respondents.  Memo No.423 dated 22.4.2009 was received by complainant No.2 in which a demand of Rs.6,05,017/- was raised on the allegation of theft of electricity.  The complainants pleaded that the demand was arbitrary and the same was raised without any solid reason.  Therefore, they filed the complaint before the District Forum for setting aside the impugned demand. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed written reply pleading therein that as per the guidelines issued in memo No.654/58 dated 6.2.2009 and 307/12 dated 11.2.2009, the old meter of the complainants was replaced with an intelligent meter on 9.3.2009, vide MCO No.663/77263 dated 4.3.2009.  The removed meter was duly packed and sealed and sent to ME Lab for checking, alongwith consent letter of complainant No.2, where the meter cover was found pressed from the front side.  Scratches were found on the meter cover which had been caused due to repeated use of magnet on the meter.  Thus, it was a clear case of theft of electricity and, accordingly, Provisional Order of Assessment No.423 dated 22.4.2009 was issued wherein a demand of Rs.6,05,017/- was raised. 

3.      The District Forum after considering the submissions of both the parties allowed the complaint as under on 31.03.2010:-

“We, therefore, direct the opposite parties that the account of the complainants should be overhauled for the period with effect from 9/2008 to 9.3.2009 on account of theft of energy committed by the complainants on the similar patron as already overhauled vide Ex.R7 following the instructions contained in Part-III Punjab Govt. Gaz. July 27 2007 (SR-VN5 1929 SAKA) mentioned in Para No.2 of its sub Section (b) under the heading Assessment of Electricity Charges in cases of theft of electricity as per Section 135 of Electricity Supply Code and related matters Regulation, 2007 within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.

      Copy of the order be sent to the parties through registered post free of costs.” 

4.      Aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum, the complainants/petitioners preferred an appeal before the State Commission being first appeal no.740 of 2010.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal as well as the complaint in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (C) No.35906 of 2011) titled as U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, decided on 1^st July, 2013.

5.      Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/complainants.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

7.      The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that this was a case where a penalty amount of Rs.6,05,017/- was demanded by the respondents/opposite parties, Punjab State Electricity Board as calculated on the basis of 12 months.  The District Forum after hearing both the parties decided that the opposite parties shall overhaul account of the complainants w.e.f.9/2008 to 9.3.2009 only.  Thus, the District Forum allowed the penalty only this period and not for 12 months.  As the complainants case was that there has been no use of magnet to slow down the meter, he preferred an appeal against the order of the District Forum.  However, the State Commission dismissed the appeal as well as the complaint on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P.Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad (supra).  Learned counsel argued that as no appeal was preferred against the order of the District Forum by the opposite parties/respondents, it had become final qua the opposite parties.  Moreover, the State Commission should have only considered the relief sought in the appeal filed by the complainants and he had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in as appeal filed by the complainants on the basis of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was not in existence at the time when the order of the District Forum was passed.  Thus, the order of the State Commission is prima facie illegal and cannot be sustained.  It was requested to set aside the order of the State Commission and to uphold the order of the District Forum.   

8.      On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties stated that when the meter of the complainant/petitioner was replaced by intelligent meter, the old meter was sent for testing with the consent of the complainant.  It was found that the outer case of the meter had many scratches and the testing laboratory opined that this was due to the use of magnet to slow down the meter.  Hence, penalty was levied for the theft of electricity for a period of 12 months.  As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  U.P.Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad (supra), the complaint in theft cases is not maintainable in the consumer fora and hence the State Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

9.      I have carefully considered the arguments of both the learned counsels and have examined the record.  It is an admitted fact that no appeal was filed by the opposite parties/respondents herein against the order dated 31.03.2010 of the District Forum as such, the order of the District Forum has become final qua the opposite parties/respondents.  Though the appeal was filed by the complainants/petitioners herein, it does not make any difference on the finality of the order of the District Forum on the opposite parties/respondents.  The State Commission was required only to deal the prayers made in the memo of appeal filed by the complainants/petitioners.  As the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad (supra), was not available on the day when the District Forum passed its order, the State Commission should not have dismissed the complaint without any request from the opposite parties based on this judgment.  The jurisdiction of the State Commission was only limited to deciding the appeal filed by the complainants and not dismantling the verdict of the District Forum, which was agreed by the opposite parties and had become final for them.   The same principle was applied by this Commission, the case citied by learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. in case of RP No.3612 of 2011, Dilbag Vs. UHBVN & Anr., decided on 29.04.2014, (NC).  This Commission has not dismissed the complaint, but only dismissed the revision petition and maintained the order of the State Commission.  Thus, the order of the State Commission was beyond its jurisdiction and was illegal so far as it is related to dismissal of the complaint. 

10.    Based on the above discussion, the revision petition No.500 of 2015 is allowed and order of the State Commission is set aside so for as it relates to dismissal of the complaint. Accordingly, the order dated31.03.2010 of the District Forum is maintained so far as it relates to direction against the respondents/opposite parties.  No order as to costs for this revision petition.