This revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “The Act”), filed by Complainant, Durga Plastic Industries, is directed against order dated 14.07.2009, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short ‘‘the State Commission’’) in Appeal No.727 of 2003. By the impugned order, the State Commission has accepted the Appeal filed by the Opposite Parties, viz. Punjab State Electricity Board and its functionaries against order dated 20.03.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (for short “the District Forum”) in Compliant No.161 of 2002. The District Forum had allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to refund the amount charged in lieu of notice vide memo no.1117 dated 26.06.2002, along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the realization of the amount, a -3- consolidated compensation of Rs.5,000/- for disconnection and mental tension and harassment and Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses. 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 light of the said administrative pronouncement, in our opinion, the Revision Petition must fail. It has been observed by the State Commission that the Petitioner was committing theft of energy by tampering with the MCB & MTC seals and was controlling the actual consumption of the electric energy. The checking report prepared at the spot and signed by a representative of the Petitioner, clearly recorded that at the time of surprise inspection, it was found that the Petitioner herein was committing theft of energy by tampering with the MCB and MTC seals of the meter and he was controlling the actual consumption of the energy. -4- Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. It will be open to the Petitioner to avail of any other legal remedy as may be available to it, if so advised. |
