SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

UTTRAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B.C. Kandpal, President, C.C. Pant and Kusumlata Sharma, Members
UTTARAKHAND POWER CORPORATION LTD. - Appellant
Versus
ASHISH KUMAR - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 01 of 2003
Decided on : 22-03-2013

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. S.M. Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant; In person., for the Respondent

Cases involving theft of electric energy are not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

Headnote:

Electricity Theft - Consumer Complaint - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Electricity Act, 2003, Sections 126, 127, 135 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to theft of electricity, assessment of electricity consumption, and jurisdiction of Consumer Fora in such cases. The court emphasized that cases involving theft of electric energy are not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and referred to relevant judgments supporting this position.

Fact of the Case:

The consumer complaint was filed by a individual against the electricity distribution division for falsely implicating him in a case of electricity theft. The complainant's electricity connection was found to have tampering/illegal adjustment in the electricity meter, leading to a demand notice for a substantial amount and disconnection of the electricity connection.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the consumer complaint involving theft of electric energy was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and that the District Forum had acted beyond its jurisdiction in admitting and registering the complaint and passing an interim order for restoration of electricity connection.

Issues: The main issue was whether the consumer complaint involving theft of electric energy was maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that cases involving theft of electric energy are not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and referred to relevant judgments and legal provisions supporting this position.

Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, the order passed by the District Forum was set aside, and the consumer complaint was dismissed as being not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

ORDER

C.C. Pant, Member - This revision petition has been filed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (for short "UPCL"), the opposite party before the District Forum, Haridwar, in consumer complaint No. 335 of 2012 against the interim order dated 24.12.2012 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in the said consumer complaint.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that one Sh. Ashish Kumar S/o late Sh. Prem Chand, R/o 138, Purvi Ambar Talab, Roorkee, District Haridwar, has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. Haridwar against the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (Urban), Roorkee. Sh. Ashish Kumar, the complainant, has stated in his consumer complaint that he has been falsely implicated by the officials of the UPCL in the case of electricity theft. A perusal of the consumer complaint reveals that the complainant runs an Atta Chakki for which the electricity is drawn from an electricity connection, which is in the name of his father late Sh. Prem Chand. The officials of the UPCL checked the complainant's electricity connection and found that there was some tampering/illegal adjustment in the electricity meter, due to which it was not showing correct meter reading. Accordingly, the UPCL made provisional, and, later on a final assessment of electricity consumption and issued a demand notice to the complainant for Rs. 4,93,011. The electricity connection of the complainant was also disconnected and an F.I.R. was also lodged with the police for committing theft of electricity by the complainant. Since, the UPCL was not responding to complainant's request in this regard, he filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. The District Forum has admitted and registered the consumer complaint at Sl. No. 335 of 2012. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the District Forum has also passed an interim order dated 24.12.2012, whereby the complainant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,10,000 with the opposite party within three days from the date of the order and the opposite party was directed to restore the electricity connection of the complainant, thereafter the opposite party, feeling that the District Forum has exercised the power beyond its jurisdiction, has challenged the said order by way of this revision petition.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and respondent in person and also perused the material placed on record.

5. At the very outset, we would like to say that such consumer complaints, which involve the dispute of electricity thefts, fraud or forgery, should not be entertained by the Consumer Fora. The instant case is one of such cases and the District Forum has certainly exercised the power beyond its jurisdiction not only by admitting and registering the consumer complaint, but also by granting interim relief to the complainant. The reason being that the respondent-complainant is running an Atta chakki, but the electricity connection, from which the electricity for the Atta Chakki is being drawn, is in the name of his father late Sh. Prem Chand. He has not got the connection transferred in his own name. As such, there being no privity of contract between the consumer and the service provider, the complainant is not a consumer of the revisionist. Secondly, the respondent has also failed to establish that he is the sole proprietor of the said Atta Chakki and is running the same for self-employment for earning his livelihood. Third and the most important reason is that the inspecting team of the UPCL found that there was some tampering in the electricity meter and some adjustments were also made in it, due to which it was running slow. The inspection reports of the said electricity meter are duly signed by the respondent-complainant. Therefore, the revisionist-UPCL has made provisional and then a final assessment of the electricity consumed by the respondent-complainan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top