Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1049/2012

Prem Chand S/o Narata Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar Saini

06 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.  1049 of 2012

                                                                                    Date of institution: 27.9.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 6.7.2015.

Prem Chand son of Sh. Narata Ram, resident of village Nayagaon, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. S.D.O., U.H.B.V.N.L. Sadharua.
2. S.E. , U.H.B.V.N.L. Yamuna Nagar.
3. M.D., U.H.B.V.N.L. Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.
4. XEN, U.H.B.V.N.L. Naraingarh.                

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Opposite parties   

           

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Ashok Kumar Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Sh. D.S.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

 

                        Before proceeding inthis complaint, it would be appropriate to mention here that earlier a complaint was filed in this Forum by Smt. Raj Kumari wife of Prem Chand which was allowed vide order dated 25.10.2006 and memo No.522 dated 30.1.2006 for depositing the amount of Rs. 8000/- on account of checking conducted by the official of the respondents was quashed and it was further ordered that, if any, amount is found deposited towards this amount the same be refunded to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum and pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. Aggrieved with this order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commissioner with the prayer that the Electricity Connection is in the name of Sh. Prem Chand i.e. husband of the complainant and notice of penalty was also issued in favour of the husband of the complainant. As the complainant Raj Kumari was not the consumer and hence the appeal was accepted vide order dated 23.7.2012 and impugned order of this Forum was set aisde and further complainant was given liberty to approach the court of competent jurisdiction to redress his grievance on the same cause of action, within 60 days.

After receiving the order from the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, the complainant has filed the present complaint and challenged a sum of 8000/- which was imposed upon him under section 135 and 152 of Electricity Act 2003, vide memo No. 522 dated 30.1.2006 for his electric account bearing No. JS-12/2052 and prayed for quashing of the aforesaid amount. However, during the pendency of the present complaint, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012 (Arising out of SPC © No. 35906 of 2011 titled as U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad decided on 1.7.2013 has mentioned in para No. 46 & 47 that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters. The para No.46 & 47 are reproduced as under:

46.  

47- “ In view of the observation made above, we hold that:

1. In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint” as defined under section 2(1)( c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.
3. The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving Redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of “Consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to “unfair trade practice” or a “restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider”, or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law.”

For the reasons as mentioned above, we have no hesitation in setting aside the orders passed by the National Commissioner. They are accordingly set aside. All the appeals filed by the service provider-licensee are allowed, however, no order as to costs.

                        The ratio of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred above, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, we are of the considered view that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters. So, the present complaint is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to approach the appropriate Authority/Court/ Tribunal constituted under the Electricity Act 2003 to get redressed his/her grievances on the same cause of action, in accordance with law, if so advised.  However, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the complainant may seek exemption/condonation of delay under section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which the proceedings remained pending before this Consumer Forum. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 6.7.2015.

                                                                                          ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER

 

All the 1 to 4 pages of this judgment

are checked and signed by me.  

 

 

 

President

6.7.2015.