IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no illegality in the orders passed by the lower fora, and no legal point involved so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the National Commission, the said revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Assistant Executive Engineer/SDO Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. against the order dated 02.03.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.527 of 2016.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.12.2015, electricity connection bearing account no.GC51/0002 installed at the school premises of the complainant was checked by the checking party of the petitioner headed by Engineer of Shakti Sadan Jalandhar and Additional Superintending Engineer enforcement No.1 Jalandhar. Electricity account of the complainant was overhauled and it was found that the amount of Rs.12,47,193/- was payable by the complainant by application of multiplying factor as 2. Therefore a notice bearing memo no.577 was issued to the complainant for deposit of the said amount. On 19.12.2015, a representation from the complainant was received. Thereafter the electricity account of the complainant was again scrutinized and overhauled. It was found that during the said period, the complainant has been paying MMC (minimum monthly charges) bills and the amount of that bills, which were paid by the complainant was liable to be adjusted and after adjusting that amount, the complainant was found liable to pay an amount of Rs.7,49,448/-. On 01.01.2016, therefore notice bearing memo no.7 was issued to the complainant for deposit of the said amount of Rs.7,49,448/- along with the calculation sheet and copy of relevant provision/regulation, by relying upon which the account of electricity was overhauled.

3. Aggrieved by this action of the petitioner/opposite party, the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.26 of 2016 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Ferozepur, (in short ‘the District Forum’). The complaint was resisted by the opposite party/petitioner on the ground that as per conversion factor of (2) Rs.7,49,448/- is required to be paid by the complainant. However, the District Forum vide its order dated 30.05.2016 allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-

“18. In view of what has been discussed above, the present complaint is allowed against opposite party and the demand of the opposite party raised vide demand notice bearing memo No.07 dated 01/01/2016 for an amount of Rs.7,49,448/- is hereby quashed and the opposite party is directed to refund to the complainant as sum of Rs.1,12,420/- deposited as a conditional amount of stay with immediate effect. The complainant is further held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment and sufferings and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses from the opposite party. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which, the opposite parties shall be liable for penal action under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act.”

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party preferred an appeal bearing No.527 of 2016 and the same has been dismissed vide its order dated 02.03.2017.

5. Hence the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned AAG for the State of Punjab on behalf of the petitioner at the admission stage. The learned counsel stated that the meter was installed in the year 2010. However, the checking was made in the year 2015 and the consumed units were corrected on the basis of multiplying factor, which was actually (2), though the bills were being raised at a multiplying factor of only (1) and the complainant was paying bills on the basis of the minimum monthly charges. The main objection of the learned counsel was that the fora below have not considered the issue of consumer, which was alleged by the opposite party. It was stated by the learned counsel that the respondent/complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he had taken electrici