Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- Petitioners have challenged the award dated 24.07.2013 of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application filed under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short “1987 Act”) in a case where consumer of the electricity has been asked to pay for the theft of electricity.

2. In short, respondent No.2 has alleged that she is a consumer of the petitioners and is holding a NDSP electricity connection, bearing Account No.JR-11-0248. She had been making regular payment of the electricity bills till the false bill of Rs.1,26,379/-, as detailed in Bill No.00471 dated 18.11.2012, was asked to be paid on 03.12.2012. She challenged that bill by way of an application filed under Section 22-C of 1987 Act before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Gurgaon.

3. Petitioners have challenged the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat on the ground that the said bill was raised on account of theft of electricity. It is alleged that checking party had inspected the premises No.2 on 26.9.2012, and found that :

‘at the time of checking, Sh. Sunil is present at the premises and supply is running direct by providing cut in incoming 2/C PVC wire by which the meter was byepassed. By this means, the supply is running direct for house paili at where rest of portion running through meter bearing A/C No.JR11-0245, which may be confirmed from record particular of meter Sr.No.67041 make Awn R- 33018. Take action as per nigam instruction’.

4. The Lok Adalat observed that the photo copy of the checking report does not bear the signatures of the consumer and nowhere it is the case that the consumer had refused to sign the report, the checking was not conducted in accordance with rules and thus demand raised by the petitioners was not justified, and as such it was set aside and the petitioners were directed to take average consumption of six months from the month of January 2013 till July 2013 and on that basis, electricity consumption bill of the disputed period was ordered to be recovered from respondent No.2.

5. The only question raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is as to whether the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) has jurisdiction to decide the case of theft of electricity?

6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that theft of electricity is defined under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “2003 Act”) and both suspected and per se theft is compoundable under Section 152 of Act 2003 but the Special Courts are constituted under Section 153 of 2003 Act to follow the procedure provided under Section 154 of the Act for dealing with offences of theft, referred to under Section 135 to 140 of 2003 Act. It is further submitted that even otherwise, if it was a case of over consumption, which is dealt with in terms of Section 126 of 2003 Act, then an appeal lies under Section 127 and the Civil courts shall have no jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised under Section 126 being barred under Section 145 of 2003 Act. Learned counsel has relied upon an order of this court passed in CWP No.15748 of 2011 on 31.07.2012 titled Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd Vs. Vikas Mittal, Director, J.P Agri. Solutions Pvt Ltd and another.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that the application has rightly been considered and entertained by the Lok Adalat because as per Section 22-C, First Proviso, the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of a matter relating to not compoundable offence whereas offence under Section 135 of 2003 Act is compoundable under Section 152 of 2003 Act. It is further submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in the matter where value of the property in dispute does exceed Rs.10 lacs whereas in the present case, it was even below Rs.1.5 lacs. It is further submitted that the theft of the Electricity is not made out because the checkin