NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1426/2011

BALVINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. BSK LEGAL

04 Apr 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 1426 OF 2011

(Against the Order dated 03/01/2011 in Appeal No. 1048/2008 of the State Commission Haryana)

1. BALVINDER SINGH R/o. Vill. & P.O. Ding Road, Teh. & Distt. Sirsa Sirsa Haryana	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. "OP" Sub-Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sirsa Haryana	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

NEMO

For the Respondent :

Mr.Surender Singh Hooda, Advocate

Dated : 04 Apr 2014

ORDER

Despite service the petitioner remains unrepresented. Accordingly we have heard learned counsel for the respondent.           In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed, (2013) 8 SCC 491, wherein it has been held that a complaint against assessment made under Section 126 or action taken against those committing offences under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the present revision petition cannot be entertained. In the impugned order the State Commission has recorded that on 5.7.2007 the premises of the complainant was inspected by the officials of the respondent, who noticed theft /unauthorized use of electricity by him by using Magnet on the top of MVB of (Metalic) Energy meter. Thereafter, respondent raised a demand of Rs.16128/- as loss to the Nigam and Rs.10,800/- as compounding fee for theft of electricity. State Commission has rejected the plea of the complainant that since the electricity meter had been installed on the electric pole outside the premises of the petitioner it was the duty of the respondent to take care of the meter and the complainant cannot be held liable for any alleged act for which penalty had been imposed on him.           In view of the said finding and in light of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Anis Ahmed (supra), no ground is made out for our interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly.

......................J

D.K. JAIN

PRESIDENT

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER