NIRMALA DEVI vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.04.2008 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 522 of 2002 - Nirmala Devi Vs. Punjab State Electricity

Board & Anr. by which, appeal was dismissed and order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld against which, this revision petition

has been filed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was subscriber of commercial electric connection of the OP/respondent. Earlier,

complainant''s connection was disconnected by OP and learned District Forum vide order dated 22.05.2001directed OP to restore electricity

connection and pay damages of Rs.5,000/ -. Even then, order was not complied by OP and OP issued demand notice on 4.10.2000 for

Rs.3,28,480/ - on the ground that electric meter of complainant was found tampered with. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed

complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that 4 number M.E. seals were found tampered and meter was not working

properly and in pursuance to that, demand was raised and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties

dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed.

Previously, vide order dated 14.11.2008, this Commission dismissed revision petition, but Hon''ble Apex Court set aside aforesaid order in Civil

Appeal Nos. 7070 -7071 of 2010 - Nirmal Devi Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Anr. and remanded the matter back to the

National Commission to pass a fresh order giving reasons.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that legal demand on the false basis of theft of electricity has been raised by respondent and

learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence,

revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, leaned Counsel for the respondent submitted that Consumer

Fora has no jurisdiction to deal with cases pertaining to theft of electricity; hence revision petition be dismissed.

Hon''ble Apex Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad - : (2013) 8 SCC 491 has held that cases falling within Sections

126 to 135 of Indian Electricity Act are not maintainable before Consumer Fora and consumer should have recourse for redressal of his grievance

before the appropriate Authority under Indian Electricity Act.

PERUSAL of record reveals that demand has been raised on the basis of tampering of meter seals, which amounts to theft prima facie. In such

circumstances, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing

complaint and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Petitioner is given liberty to approach the appropriate Authority under

the Indian Electricity Act for redressal of her grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.