MOHAN LAL vs Uhbvn

MR. Justice R.K. Batta, Presiding Member-Heard Counsel appearing on both sides on condonation and admission.

THE delay in filing the revision is of 57 days. The same has been explained by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had taken recourse to review before the State Commission, but the review application before the State Commission was dismissed for want of legal provisions. It is now well settled that the State Commission has no power of review. In spite of the settled position, the petitioner had taken recourse to remedy in which time was spent. Be that as it may, taking into consideration that the matter requires consideration on merits, I am inclined to condone the delay of 57 days subject to, however, payment of cost of Rs. 5,000 by the petitioner to the respondent.

ON the question of admission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Commission two judgments of this Commission, namely, Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Anwar Ali, II (2008) CPJ 284 (NC), and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors. v. Megh Raj and Ors., IV (2008) CPJ 11 (NC)=(2009) CJ 108 (NC). On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Anwar Ali (supra), as well as the judgment of the Hon''ble Single Judge dated 31.5.2004 in Sohan Lal v. North Delhi Power Ltd. and Ors., 113 (2004) DLT 547, and also the judgment of Delhi High Court in judgment dated 25.9.2008 in Sh. B.L. Kantroo v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 154 (2008) DLT 56 (DB)= RFA (OS) No. 12/2008 - .

PURSUANT to inspection dated 22.11.2005, it was found that the petitioner was committing theft of electricity by passing the meter. Notice was sent by the respondent compounding the theft of electricity amounting to Rs. 14,00,000. This notice was subject matter of challenge before the District Forum. The District Forum by order dated 8.12.2005 held that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainants were not consumer of the respondent. The petitioner challenged the said order before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeal in limine and confirmed the order of the District Forum.

IN Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Anwar Ali (supra), this Commission had held that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to interfere with initiation of criminal proceedings/final order passed by Special Court constituted under Section 153 or civil liability determined under Section 154 of the Electricity Act. In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors. v. Megh Raj and Ors. (supra), which was subsequently decided, this Commission was dealing with the cases of theft of energy and demand notices levying penalty/compounding fee, it was held that neither provisional nor final assessment was made as provided under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, but straightaway complaint was filed and directions were issued which were not permissible and the orders passed by the Electricity Company were held to be arbitrary and unjustified and de hors of statutory provisions.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has relied upon two judgments of the Apex Court. In Sohan Lal v. North Delhi Power Ltd. and Ors. (supra), it was held that in case of theft of electricity which falls under Section 135 of Electricity Act, Special Court is empowered to determine civil liability. It was also held that theft of electricity is not covered under Section 126 of Electricity Act as it merely deals with the consumers indulging in unauthorized use of electricity alone. In Sh. B.L. Kantroo v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (supra), it was held that the dispute about the civil liability in theft cases is impliedly excluded from the jurisdiction of Civil Court in view of provisions of Sections 153 and 154 of the Electricity Act.

IN this connection, it is necessary to make reference to Section 3 of the CP Act, which provides that remedy under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of this Act give the consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other existing laws.

IN view of the judgments of this Commission and the judgments of the Delhi High Court referred to above and the provisions under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; the question arises as to whether the Consumer Fora will have jurisdiction to entertain matters arising out of theft of electricity governed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, wherein the Special Court is empowered to determine civil and criminal liability. The matter, in our opinion, requires proper consideration and determination. Accordingly, the matter is admitted. Of course, admission is subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000 by the petitioner to the respondent, which shall be paid within 6 weeks of the receipt of the order and receipt thereof shall be filed in Registry. Once the payment is made, the matter shall stand admitted and the matter shall be listed for final hearing as per its turn in due course with due notices to the parties and their Counsel by Regd. A/D. Ordered accordingly.