Delhi

StateCommission

RP/38/09

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SADAN KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                          Date of Arguments: 26.02.2016

Date of Decision: 14.03.2016

 

Revision Petition No. 38/2009

(Arising out of the order dated 13.10.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 851/2007 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

BSES Bhawan Nehru Place

New Delhi-110019

Through its Authorised Officer

Mr. Pramod Gupta                                        .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Sh. Sadan Kumar

WZ-406/I

Janak Park, Hari Nagar

New Delhi-110064                                                ..........Respondent                 

                                                                  

CORAM

 

O P GUPTA                              -                  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

S C JAIN                                 -                  MEMBER

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

O P GUPTA -  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.      The present revision challenges order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the District Forum-X in Complaint Case No. 851/2009. The said order rejected application of the OP/petitioner for adjourning the case sine die and it was held that the pleas taken in the said application would be considered at the time of final arguments. It was done so as the pleadings were already completed and the case was fixed for filing written arguments.
2.      In revision the contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid order is in attar this regard on the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by holding that Consumer Court do not have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the matters pertaining to theft of electricity. The said issue was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 8646/2007 titled as Neeraj Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. The said appeal arisen out of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi directing the Consumer Forums in NCT of Delhi not to pass any interim order in support of compliance whether the issue of direct theft of electricity or dishonest abstraction of electrical energy is involved. Vide decisions dated 10.01.2007 passed in CM (M) 46 of 2007 titled as BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs. Neeraj Kumar and Ors. This Commission vide order dated 19.12.2008 in Pradeep Dhawan Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. directed the District Forum to sine die adjourn the matters involved issue of theft of electricity pending jurisdiction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition Civil No. 1240/2002 titled as DVB Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. decided on 16.12.2005 held that dispute pertaining to theft of electricity cannot formed separate matter of proceedings under Consumer Protection Act.
3.      We have gone through the material on record and heard arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. We did not have the advantage of hearing the arguments of the respondent as he did not appear.
4.      Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad (2013) 8 SCC 491 which supports the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the said decision was not in existence at the time of the passing the impugned order by the District Forum. But nevertheless since law has been settled by now, we do not find any justification for remanding the case back to the District Forum for deciding the application on merits. Instead we proceed to decide the said application ourselves.
5.      Undoubtedly the case is relates to the theft of electricity in premises No. WZ406/2001 Janakpuri, Hari Nagar, Delhi-110064 from three domestic case No. mentioned in the complaint. So the controversy is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6.      The revision is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent is dismissed. However, the respondent will have a right to challenge the bills by filing an appeal before the competent authority under section 127 Delhi Electricity Act after excluding the time spend in proceedings under Consumer Protection Act as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.
7.      One copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of costs. One copy be sent to the District Forum for information.

(O P Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S C Jain)

Member

(f)