PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1032 of 2010 UHBVNL & Anr. Vs. Dilbagh by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner challenged the checking report dated 2.3.2010 as well as notice dated 19.3.2010 by which, demand of Rs.2,12,961/- (Rs.1,53,961/- on account of penalty and Rs.60,000/- on account of compounding fee) has been made by the OP/respondent from the complainant in respect of his electricity connection. OP contested complaint and submitted that demand was raised on the basis of checking report dated 2.3.2010, which was prepared in the presence of the complainant. As per checking report, complainant was found using electricity for running a dairy and it was the case of unauthorized use of energy; so, penalty and compounding fees was levied. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint against which, appeal filed by the OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and compounding fee of Rs.60,000/- for compounding the offence of theft was set aside against which, this revision petition was filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal partly; hence, revision petition be admitted. 5. Checking report reveals as under: ) Checking was done in the presence of the complainant Shri Dilbagh who has affixed his left thumb impression on the checking report in token of its correctness. He has also acknowledged receipt of the copy of the checking report which is duly signed by all the members of the checking team. ii) It was found that the complainant was having 5.900 KW connected load against the sanctioned load of 1.700 KW. iii) The meter was found fixed inside the premises of Dilbagh Dairy. iv) On checking the meter on load, the pulse was found to be blinking and meter was found excessively slow. v) Some abnormal scratches were observed on the meter body. vi) Supply was disconnected and meter was got removed and it was packed in a cardboard box duly paper sealed. vii) Meter be got checked from M&T Lab. Thus, it becomes clear that it was the case covered under Section 126 to Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 and as per judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012 U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, the complaint was not maintainable before Consumer Fora and petitioner was supposed to approach for redressal of his grievance to the appropriate authority under Electricity Act. As appeal has been partly allowed and respondent has not filed revision petition against the impugned order, we do not interfere with the order of the State Commission to the extent of setting aside demand of Rs.60,000/-, but, revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging impugned order is not maintainable in the light of judgment of the Apex Court and petitioner is given liberty to approach to the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance as per provisions of Indian Electricity Act. 6. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with liberty to approach to the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. |