ORAL
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
REVISION NO. R/65/2019
(Against the order dated 18-06-2019 in Complaint Case No.
55/2019 of the District Consumer Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar )
Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited
Electricity Urban Distribution Division-I
Sector-25, Noida.
...Revisionist
Vs.
Sandeep, S/o Sri Brahmpal
R/o House No.1, Garhi Chaukhandi
FNG Vihar II, Sector 151 Noida
Gautam Budh Nagar
...Opposite party
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Revisionist : Mr. Isar Husain, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :
Dated : 18-07-2019
ORDER
MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT
Sri Isar Husain, learned Counsel for the revisionist appeared.
I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused impugned order dated 18-06-2019 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 55/2019 Sandeep V/s Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited whereby the District Consumer Forum has passed interim order with direction to the opposite party know revisionist in present revision petition to reconnect electric connection of complainant now opposite party in revision petition.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the complaint filed before District Consumer Forum is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
It is further contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the connection of opposite party/complainant has been disconnected in default of payment of bill which has been issued on the basis of assessment made under Section 126 of Electricity Act.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the
:2:
complainant was involved in theft of electricity. Therefore, Crime No. 736/2018 under Section 135(1)(A) of Electricity Act was lodged in local police station and assessment was made under the Electricity Act on the basis of said theft. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act in view of proposition laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012 arising out of S.L.P. No. 35906 of 2011 U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others V/s Anis Ahmad.
I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the revisionist.
In paragraph 2 of complaint it has been admitted that Crime No. 736/2018 under Section 135(1)(A) of Electricity Act has been registered against complainant now opposite party in police station for theft of electricity and the recovery in question is alleged to have been made in pursuance of assessment made on the basis of said theft. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act in view of proposition laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in above case of U P Power Corporation Limited and others V/s Anish Ahmad.
In view of above revision pertition is disposed of finally with direction to the District Consumer Forum to decide issue of maintainability of complaint in the light of proposition laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U P Power Corporation Limited and others V/s Anish Ahmad.
In case the District Consumer Forum finds that the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, the District Consumer Forum shall pass order on objection filed by revisionist after hearing both parties.
Till date of decision on maintainability of complaint as well as disposal of objection filed by revisionist/opposite party the operation of impugned order shall be kept in abeyance.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
