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 (for short “UHBVN”) is directed against order dated

-2-

17.12.2010, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short ‘‘the State Commission’’) in Appeal No.250 of 2006.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by UHBVN against order dated 09.12.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short “the District Forum”) in complaint no.405/10.11.2004.  The District Forum had allowed the complaint and directed UHBVN  to withdraw demand notice issued to the Complainant for payment of a sum of `1,89,756/- along with another sum of `4,800/- as penalty for unauthorized extension of load and also pay `1,000/- as compensation and `500/- towards costs.

               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

-3-

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

               In the present case, it has been observed by the fora below that on 10.09.2004, the domestic electricity connection, bearing A/c No. KhD-684/1608, in the name of Complainant was checked by the Vigilance party and during checking it was found from the said connection that the complainant had given supply to Bharat Gas as well as to Param Palace for commercial purpose.  A checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of Complainant’s Manager.  The meter was removed and handed over to the Junior Engineer for sending the same to laboratory for examination; ass per laboratory report it was found that the seals of the meter were tempered with; the load of Bharat Gas was actually 1.600 KW.  Accordingly, for unauthorized use of the electricity a demand of `1,89,756/- as penalty for theft of energy and a sum of `4800/- as penalty for unauthorized extension of load was assessed against the Complainant and a notice was issued.  It was this notice which was challenged in the Complaint, which has been allowed.   

-4-

               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.