Despite service, no one appears for the petitioner. This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the complainant questioning the correctness of order dated 16.8.2011, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short “the State Commission”). By the impugned order, the State Commission has accepted the appeal preferred by Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and its functionaries, respodnents herein, against order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner against the penalty amount of `48,183/- imposed by the respondents, was allowed. In our opinion, in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anis Ahmad – (2013)8 SCC 491, wherein it has been held that a complaint against assessment made under Section 126 or action taken against those committing offences under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable under the Act, the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum was not maintainable. In the impugned order, dated 16.8.2011, the State Commission has recorded that at the time of inspection on 2.4.2002 by the Vigilance Department of the respondents, it was found that the petitioner was using the domestic connection for non-domestic purposes. The checking was done in the presence of the husband of the petitioner, who signed the checking report in token of its correctness. Undoubtedly, the tariff of non-domestic purpose, which is commercial in nature, is different. The petitioner was using one drill machine and one welding set for non-domestic purpose against the domestic supply and the rate of non-domestic purpose is higher than that of the domestic tariff and thus was earning profits by misusing the electricity connection against the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act. Pursuant to the vigilance report submitted by the officials, a notice bearing Memo No.315 dated 3.4.2002 was issued to the petitioner imposing penalty in the sum of `48,183/- on account of theft of electricity. It was this penalty, which was challenged in the complaint before the District Forum. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, complaint under the Act, against such demand could not be entertained. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. |
