18.05.16

Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):

Heard Sh. S.M. Jain, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sh. Sandeep Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 310 of 2015; Sh. Sachin Kumar Vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division and another, whereby the electricity department was directed to restore the electricity connection of the opposite party within a period of two days’.  Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been preferred by the electricity department on the ground that the District Forum has committed manifest error of law by not considering the checking report dated 11.05.2015 and that an FIR was lodged against the opposite party under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also that a demand of Rs. 71,311/- was raised against the opposite party.  Further ground has been raised that the District Forum illegally and without jurisdiction entertained the consumer complaint and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to cancel the criminal prosecution and to quash the assessment made under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionists drew our attention to the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Uttarakhand, Dehradun in Representation No. 24 of 2015; Sh. Sachin Kumar Vs. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (Urban), Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, whereby the representation filed by the opposite party was dismissed.  Learned counsel also drew attention to the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Dehradun in Complaint No. 28 of 2015; Sh. Sachin Kumar Vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (Urban), Roorkee.  By perusal of the said order, it reveals that no relief was granted to the opposite party – complainant.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has contended that FIR was lodged against Sh. Sachin Kumar S/o Sh. Amit Kumar, whereas the father’s name of the opposite party – Sh. Sachin Kumar, is Sh. Bhopal Singh.  Further, in the assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the name of the father of the opposite party was wrongly mentioned. 

Learned counsel for the revisionists has replied that the objections were filed by Sh. Sachin Kumar – opposite party against the assessment order and in such matters, the District Forum has no jurisdiction.  Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Anis Ahmad; AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2766, wherein in para 46, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

In view of above law, the impugned order dated 05.11.2015 is liable to be set aside and the revision petition is fit to be allowed.

Revision petition is allowed.  Order impugned dated 05.11.2015 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside.  The revisionists would be at liberty to raise all the objections before the District Forum and they may also move an application for dismissal of the consumer complaint on the grounds available to them.  If such an application is moved, before proceeding further in the matter, the District Forum shall first decide the issue of maintainability of the consumer complaint.  No order as to costs.