This revision petition under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “The Act”), filed by Opposite Party, viz. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short “UHBVNL”) 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.1332 of 2010.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by UHBVNL against order dated 10.06.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short “the District Forum”) in complaint no.235/2009.  The District Forum while allowing the complaint, held the imposition of a sum of `30,000/- to be illegal and set aside the same.

               Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent who is appearing in person.

               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

-3-

under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, complaint under the Act would not be maintainable.

               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 15.09.2008 when additional load of 7.5 BHP was found to be connected.  

               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.